List exchange houses

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly signals a read-only listing operation and discloses the scope ('all ... tracked') and included fields. It does not mention ordering, pagination, or output format, but for a simple zero-parameter list this is acceptable.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The entire description is one efficient, front-loaded sentence. It packs the geographic scope, the Spanish-language alias, and the returned fields into minimal space with no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter listing tool with no annotations or output schema, this description is nearly complete: it names the resource, scope, and return attributes. A minor gap is that 'departments served' is slightly ambiguous without clarifying that these are Uruguayan departments.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter meaning. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adds useful context about what the returned data contains.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('list') and a precise resource ('all Uruguayan exchange houses'), and enumerates the returned attributes: display name, website, and departments served. This makes the tool's role clear and distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on rates, conversion, evolution, news, and summaries.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The intended use is implied: call this to get a directory of exchange houses and their basic contact/coverage information. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it relates to siblings such as get_rates or best_house.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.