TCMB MCP

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

Annotations already cover key behavioral traits (read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds minimal context by specifying the data source (TCMB) and that rates are 'current', but doesn't disclose additional behaviors like rate limits, authentication needs, or response format. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 low complexity (1 optional parameter), rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency), and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It specifies the source and temporal scope ('current'), but lacks details on return values (e.g., structure, units) or error handling, which could be useful despite annotations.

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 the parameter 'currencies' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of currency codes or default behavior if no currencies are specified. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the action ('getirir' - fetches/retrieves) and resource ('güncel döviz kurlarını' - current exchange rates) from a specific source ('TCMB'den' - from TCMB). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'tcmb_get_historical_rates' by specifying 'current' rates, but doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings (e.g., 'tcmb_list_currencies' might also retrieve current data).

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. It doesn't mention scenarios where it's preferred over siblings like 'tcmb_compare_currencies' or 'tcmb_convert_currency', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The description implies usage for current rates but lacks explicit comparison.

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