get_currency_list

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden and does so exceptionally well. It discloses the read-only nature, the no-op exchange parameter, the lack of request arguments, that it is not confirm-gated, and that it returns the server's JSON unchanged. It also grounds the claim in the actual route and session verification.

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?

Though longer than average, every sentence earns its place. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the rest adds critical behavioral and compatibility context that prevents misuse. There is no fluff or repetition.

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 simple read-only listing tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, endpoint, parameter behavior, safety profile, and return behavior. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 0%, and the description fully compensates. It explains that exchange is accepted only for forward-compatibility, that the deployed route takes no arguments, and that the parameter has no effect on the result. This is exactly the meaning an agent needs beyond the raw schema.

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 lists OctoBot's globally configured trading currencies/symbols and maps to a specific endpoint. It is clear about the resource and scope, but it does not explicitly differentiate from similar siblings like get_all_currencies or get_all_symbols.

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 gives clear context: the tool always returns the same global list and the exchange parameter is a no-op filter on the current OctoBot route. This tells the agent when the tool is appropriate, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools for filtered or exchange-specific lists.

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