Get current exchange rates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read-only operation and notes the public API, implying no authentication is needed. However, it does not mention response format, error behavior, or whether results are cached, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.

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 front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose without redundancy. Every word adds value, making it an excellent example of conciseness even though it lacks some semantic detail.

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?

The tool has one optional parameter with no schema description, no output schema, and no behavioral notes; the agent cannot tell how coursid affects results or what the response looks like. The description is also silent on when to prefer this over the history sibling, making it incomplete for a tool with this little additional structure.

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 0%: the only parameter, coursid, is an integer with no description or enum. The description never mentions or explains this parameter, and with such low schema coverage it was incumbent on the description to compensate. It does not.

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 states a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('current PrivatBank exchange rates') and specifies it uses the public API. It also distinguishes from the sibling history tool by emphasizing 'current', making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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?

Usage context is implied by the word 'current' and the name of a sibling tool ('get_exchange_rate_history'), but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives or mention the optional coursid parameter. It provides no direct guidance or exclusions.

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