TCMB MCP

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

Annotations cover key behavioral traits (read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description doesn't need to repeat these. It adds minimal context by implying a comparison operation, but doesn't disclose additional details like rate limits, authentication needs, or what the comparison entails (e.g., returns data vs. analysis). No contradiction with annotations.

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, efficient sentence in Turkish that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be more informative without losing conciseness.

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 tool's complexity (comparing currencies with historical data), lack of output schema, and rich annotations, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the comparison outputs (e.g., rates, trends, differences) or how it relates to sibling tools, leaving gaps for the agent to understand the tool's full context and usage.

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%, with clear parameter descriptions in Turkish. The tool description doesn't add any meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how target_currencies and base_currency interact or what the days parameter affects. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 'Birden fazla para birimini karşılaştırır' (Compares multiple currencies) states a clear verb+resource combination but lacks specificity about what is being compared (e.g., exchange rates, historical trends) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like tcmb_get_current_rates or tcmb_get_historical_rates. It's vague about the comparison scope.

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 this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone, with no explicit comparison to siblings like tcmb_convert_currency.

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