get_data_sources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it discloses the exact returned artifacts (verification dates, official exchange fee page URLs, caveats), which matters because no output schema exists.

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 content is front-loaded with the trigger condition, which is good. However, the entire description is duplicated verbatim in Chinese and English, roughly doubling length without adding information for a single reader; that redundancy costs it a point.

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, read-only metadata tool this is nearly complete: it covers when to call, what is returned, and that no arguments are needed. Minor gap is that it doesn't describe the shape/volume of the response (e.g., whether it lists all tracked files), though the absence of an output schema is largely compensated.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description explicitly confirms 'No parameters required,' which correctly sets the agent's expectation and matches the empty schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (retrieve data sources for fee data) and is unmistakably distinct from every sibling, which are all calculation/comparison tools. The return content (per-file last-verified dates, source URLs, caveats) is named, so an agent knows exactly what this produces.

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?

Gives explicit trigger conditions with concrete example questions ('where does this data come from?', 'how often is it updated?'), which is strong usage guidance. It stops short of naming an alternative tool, but none of the siblings overlap with provenance lookup, so differentiation is effectively complete.

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