Colombia Trm History

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden and does a reasonably good job: it states the source (datos.gov.co/Superfinanciera), the date format, and that both daily values and a summary are returned. It does not mention edge cases such as weekends, holidays, invalid ranges, or rate limits, but the core behavior is transparent for a read-only history tool.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the following sentences add only essential details about format, output, and source. There is no fluff or redundancy.

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?

The description covers the essential operational context: what data is returned, the date format, and the authoritative source. Since an output schema exists, return-value details do not need to be restated. Missing explicit start/end semantic details and sibling differentiation keep it from being fully complete, but the tool is simple enough that this is not a major gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds useful context by specifying ISO (YYYY-MM-DD) format and the date-range concept, but it does not elaborate on inclusive boundaries, allowed ranges, or behavior when dates are invalid or out of order. The parameter names are self-explanatory, making this minimally adequate rather than rich.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair: 'Get Colombia's official TRM (USD/COP) history over a date range.' It clearly identifies the resource and scope, and the emphasis on 'history over a date range' helps distinguish it from sibling tools like colombia_official_trm.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when a historical date-range of Colombia's official TRM is needed. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool versus colombia_official_trm or currency_convert, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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