fx_history

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

There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic operation ('Get forex historical price data') without mentioning response structure, data intervals except via schema defaults, or any limitations. It does not contradict anything, but it adds minimal behavior beyond the tool's name.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words, and it leads with the action. However, it is extremely terse and conveys only the minimal purpose, missing opportunities to include helpful context without extra length.

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?

With four optional parameters and an output schema present, the description could rely on those, but it still lacks contextual guidance such as typical usage, data coverage, or relationship to sibling tools. The minimal description leaves the agent under-informed about when and how to use this tool effectively.

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?

All four parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics or clarify parameter interactions beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'forex (currency pair) historical price data', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like stock_history or crypto_history. The parenthetical 'currency pair' adds domain specificity.

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 on when to use fx_history versus alternatives such as crypto_history or world_index_history. The description neither states use cases nor excludes alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer 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.