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), so the bar is lower. The description adds minimal context about retrieving 'history and statistics', but doesn't disclose additional behaviors like rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'statistics' entails. It doesn't contradict annotations, but adds little value beyond them.

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 function. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no unnecessary words, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on output format, error handling, or sibling tool differentiation. With annotations handling safety and idempotency, the description meets a baseline level of completeness but could be more informative.

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%, so the schema fully documents all parameters (currency, start_date, end_date, rate_type). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as explaining parameter interactions or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Para birimi kur geçmişi ve istatistikleri' clearly states the tool's purpose as retrieving exchange rate history and statistics for a currency. It specifies the verb 'get' (implied) and resource 'rate history', but doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'tcmb_get_historical_rates' or 'tcmb_get_current_rates', which likely serve similar functions.

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 sibling tools or specify contexts where this tool is preferred over others like 'tcmb_get_historical_rates' or 'tcmb_compare_currencies', leaving the agent without usage direction.

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