Get TCMB rate history

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the returned statistics (first/last, min/max with dates, mean, % change) and the hard interval caps (93/731/3660 days) that determine whether a call will succeed. Missing: behavior on weekends/holidays and on dates outside TCMB's published range.

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?

Two dense sentences: output shape first, then the constraint that governs parameter choice. No filler, nothing duplicated from the schema, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description is not obliged to explain returns, yet it does so briefly and usefully. Combined with the range caps and rate-unit convention, an agent has enough to call this correctly; only edge-case behavior (holidays, out-of-range dates, TRY conversions) is left unstated.

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 coverage is 80%, so the baseline is 3, and the description earns an extra point by documenting the per-interval range limits (daily 93, weekly 731, monthly 3660) that constrain the interval parameter but appear nowhere in the schema. It does not touch rate_type or end_date, which the schema already covers 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Time series of one currency's TCMB rate') and clarifies the unit convention (TRY per 1 unit), which cleanly separates it from convert_currency and get_exchange_rates. It never names a sibling explicitly, but the 'history/time series' framing makes the distinction inferable.

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?

Usage is implied by 'time series' and by the range limits, which tell the agent when a given interval is viable. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_exchange_rates or convert_currency, and no mention of prerequisites or error behavior when a range is exceeded.

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