get_tcmb_rate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It says the tool returns official daily buying/selling rates from TCMB in TRY, but it does not cover update frequency, supported currencies beyond examples, or response structure. This is moderate transparency for a simple read operation.

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 sentences with no filler. The core return behavior is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the Frankfurter comparison in the second is a concise and effective differentiator.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description tells an agent what source, what rates, and what currency unit are involved—sufficient for selecting and invoking the tool. The lack of an explicit output format is a minor gap given the operation's simplicity.

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%, and the description does not add additional meaning to the currencyCode parameter beyond what the schema already documents. The baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 explicitly states the action ('döndürür'), the resource (TCMB official daily bulletin), and the content (buying/selling rates in TRY). It also distinguishes the tool from Frankfurter by its official bid/ask separation, which sets it apart from sibling exchange-rate tools without needing to inspect their schemas.

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?

The second sentence positions this tool against Frankfurter, indicating it is the right choice when official TCMB bid/ask rates are required. This provides clear context, though it does not explicitly name a sibling tool or state when not to use it.

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