TCMB MCP

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, such as rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'open world' means in this context. 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 appropriately sized for a simple list operation and front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 behavior, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context on output format (e.g., list structure, currency codes vs. names) and doesn't leverage annotations to explain implications like 'open world' for currency data.

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 'include_rates' clearly documented in the schema. The description mentions no parameters, so it adds no semantic value beyond the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 ('listeler' - lists) and resource ('TCMB'de mevcut tüm para birimleri' - all available currencies at TCMB). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on listing currencies rather than comparing, converting, or getting rates. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from tcmb_get_current_rates which might also list currencies with rates.

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 its siblings. It doesn't mention alternatives like tcmb_get_current_rates for currencies with rates, or when to choose between listing currencies versus getting historical/comparison data. The agent must infer usage from tool names alone.

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