exchange_rates_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose update frequency (daily ~13:00 EET), the return format (1 foreign currency = X RON), and the behavior on weekends/holidays (last available rates returned). This is meaningful behavioral context for a read-only data-fetch tool, though it doesn't detail data shape beyond the currency expression.

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 compact three-sentence block with no fluff. It front-loads the source and purpose, then adds scoping details (update time, format, holiday behavior). Every sentence earns its place; no redundancy with the schema.

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?

This is a simple single-optional-parameter read tool with 100% schema description coverage, so the description need not over-explain. It covers source, freshness, format, fallback behavior, and the optional date parameter is documented in the schema. The optional 'date' parameter is fully described in the input schema, and the description notes default to latest. Complete for this tool's complexity.

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% (the single 'date' parameter has a clear description with format and default behavior). The description also confirms the latest-available default behavior. There is essentially nothing else to add beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies since the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'Get' plus explicit resource 'current BNR exchange rates' clearly states what the tool does. It specifies the source (Banca Nationala a Romaniei), the currency convention, and the update cadence. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, within the sibling set it's distinguishable from exchange_rates_convert (a conversion tool) by its list/current-rates nature.

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 implies usage (fetch current or date-specific BNR rates) but does not explicitly state when to use this versus exchange_rates_convert or other alternatives. There are no explicit exclusions (e.g., 'use exchange_rates_convert for amount conversion'). The context of listing all currencies vs converting is implicit rather than explicit.

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