get_historical_rates

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it states the source and action, it does not explain important behaviors such as date format handling (beyond schema), behavior on non-business days, the structure of the response, or any potential limitations. This is minimal disclosure that adds little beyond the basic function.

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 single, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. Every word serves a function, and there is no redundant information or filler.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides sufficient context to understand its purpose and when to use it. It accurately conveys the input requirement and the resource returned, though it omits specifics about the return format, which is a minor gap given the simple nature.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of the parameter (date) with a clear description of the expected format (DD.MM.YYYY). The tool description adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate—the schema 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 description clearly states the tool's function: retrieving all currency exchange rates for a specific date from the National Bank of Kazakhstan. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies both the resource (currency exchange rates) and the scope (specific date, specific source), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_currency_rate (single currency) and get_rate_dynamics (time series).

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 clearly implies usage context: use this when you need all exchange rates for a particular date. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the phrase 'for a specific date' establishes a clear use case that differentiates from other tools like get_all_rates (likely current rates) or get_currency_rate.

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