Delete an unwanted currency from Firefly III by providing its code. Keeps your financial data accurate by removing unused currencies.
Delete a currency.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The single word 'Delete' entails a destructive operation, but the description does not disclose whether the action is irreversible, whether it will fail if the currency is in use, what error conditions are possible, or what side effects might occur. It adds no behavioral detail beyond what the tool name alone would imply.
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 description is extremely concise, a single sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and to the point. However, it is under-specified—it states the action but lacks the semantic and contextual details that would make the sentence fully 'earn its place'. It is not verbose but it is also not informative enough to receive a higher score.
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?
Given there are no annotations, no output schema, and a single required parameter, the description needs to provide essential context for a potentially destructive operation. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., currency must exist before deletion), side effects, or authorization needs. An agent cannot safely determine what to expect or how to validate the call, so the description is incomplete for a real-world invocation.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the 'code' parameter at all. It does not specify that the code is likely a currency identifier (e.g., ISO 4217 format), nor does it tell the agent where to obtain a valid code or that the parameter is required. The description adds no meaning beyond the raw schema, leaving the agent to guess the format and source of the required input.
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 'Delete a currency' uses a specific verb ('delete') and resource ('currency'), which is enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like delete_account, delete_budget, and delete_webhook. While short, it unambiguously identifies the action and the resource type.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention that one must first fetch the currency with get_currency or list_currencies, whether deletion is permanent, or any constraints (e.g., cannot delete a currency with existing transactions). Sibling tools like create_currency and update_currency are not referenced. The description provides no context for when this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.