exchange_currency

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the wallet restriction but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a live transaction (destructive), what permissions are needed, potential fees, rate limits, or what happens on failure. For a financial transaction tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 appropriately brief with two clear sentences. The first states the core functionality, the second adds an important constraint. There's no wasted language, though it could be slightly more structured by front-loading the most critical information about it being a transactional operation.

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?

For a financial transaction tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (transaction ID, confirmation, error messages), doesn't cover error conditions, and provides minimal behavioral context. Given the complexity and risk profile of currency exchange, more completeness is needed.

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 already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond what's in the schema - it mentions the currency pairs but doesn't provide additional context about format, constraints, or edge cases. This meets the baseline for 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 tool's purpose: 'Exchange currency within your wallet' with specific directionality (USD to BTC or BTC to USD). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on currency conversion rather than invoice management, payments, or balance checking. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all possible alternatives like 'get_btc_price' which provides pricing information but not conversion.

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 some context with 'Currently only available with Strike wallet,' which implies a prerequisite wallet type. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_btc_price' for pricing information or 'send_onchain' for transfers. The guidance is implied rather than explicit about use cases or exclusions.

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