get_policy_rate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It only adds provenance ('Kaynak: TCMB resmi web sitesi faiz oranları tablosu') and says nothing about data freshness, refresh cadence, pagination, or the shape of the returned time series for what is essentially a historical-read tool.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose followed by the data source. No filler, though the second sentence is essentially citation metadata rather than agent-facing guidance.

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-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned well enough. However, with no annotations and several near-duplicate TCMB/rate siblings, the absence of routing guidance leaves a real gap an agent cannot resolve from the description alone.

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 100%, so the single 'history' parameter (default 20, max 58) is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond that, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 (döndürür) and resource (TCMB 1-week repo policy rate) plus the historical changes it also returns. It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings such as get_tcmb_rate or get_historical_rate, which an agent could easily confuse with this tool.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus the many overlapping siblings (get_tcmb_rate, get_historical_rate, get_tcmb_snapshot). The agent is left to infer the distinction, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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