market_get_fiats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says what it does, not what the response looks like, whether it is safe/read-only, or if there are any limitations (e.g., static list, pagination). This lack of context makes the tool's behavior opaque.

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, tightly-worded sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and resource, making it efficiently scannable. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the low complexity (no params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but still incomplete. It doesn't specify the return format (e.g., list of currency codes, names, or objects), which the agent would need to correctly interpret the tool's output. A brief mention of the result type would make it more complete.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is effectively 100% (empty properties). Per the rubric, 0 parameters warrant a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter info, but none is needed.

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 a clear resource ('list of supported fiat currencies'), making the tool's basic function clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the many sibling market_* tools, such as market_get_coins or market_get_exchanges, so it misses the full 5-point criterion.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any use case, exclusion, or alternative tools, so the agent gets no directional help beyond the implied meaning of the name.

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