get_currency

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

The verb 'Get' indicates a non-mutating, read-only operation, which is a behavioral hint. However, with no annotations to fall back on, the description does not disclose what happens when a code is not found, whether authentication is required, or any other retrieval nuances.

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 one short, front-loading sentence. It contains no fluff or redundancy and immediately communicates the tool's core action and purpose.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the basic function. However, it omits what the agent should expect in terms of return value, error behavior, or related list operations that may be more appropriate, leaving a few relevant gaps.

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 phrase 'by code' adds basic meaning to the 'code' parameter, clarifying it is the lookup key. Yet, with 0% schema description coverage, the description does not explain the expected format (e.g., ISO 4217), provide examples, or clarify what valid codes look like, leaving the parameter only minimally defined.

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 'Get a single currency by code' clearly specifies the action (get), the resource (currency), and the scope (single by code). It implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_currencies and create_currency, which operate on collections or multiple currencies.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as list_currencies. The description gives no conditions, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of related tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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