메리츠 환전

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description flags fx_exchanges as a state-changing POST with a warning while labeling the others as GET queries. It also reveals the self-describing describe behavior. It does not detail side effects or permissions, but annotations already signal the risk profile.

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 compact and front-loaded: one-line usage rule, a self-documentation hint, then a scannable table of the four API variants with the mutation warning. No filler or repetition.

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 multi-endpoint router with a generic params schema, the describe instruction and method listing make the tool callable without further research. It lacks endpoint-specific parameter schemas and auth/rate-limit caveats, but the self-describe mechanism and output schema cover the critical gap.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by listing the valid api_type values and explaining that params is the argument container. The api_type='describe' mechanism is a practical way for an agent to discover endpoint-specific parameters, though the actual parameter names are not enumerated inline.

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?

Description states the tool is a Meritz Open API wrapper for forex/exchange and enumerates four distinct API calls (fx_exchanges, fx_exchanges_history, fx_rates, fx_rates_applied) with HTTP methods and purpose labels. This makes the tool's scope concrete and differentiates it from account/market/trading siblings.

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?

It explains the invocation pattern: choose an API via api_type, pass arguments via params, and use api_type='describe' for parameter documentation. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over sibling tools or give exclusion criteria.

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