tcmb_evds_gostergeler

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 names data sources and indicator categories, but it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only, fetches live data, has network dependencies, or produces a report artifact. The term 'raporla' is too vague to fully disclose operational behavior.

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, tight sentence that front-loads the data source and lists the exact indicators covered. There is no filler or redundancy, and every word adds meaningful information.

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?

With zero parameters and an output schema present, the description provides sufficient context by specifying the data sources and the full indicator set. It is concise but complete enough for a no-input reporting tool, though it could slightly benefit from stating the output form (e.g., report generation vs. data retrieval).

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 is empty (0 parameters), so the baseline is 4. The description's indicator list gives context about what the report covers, but there are no parameters that need explanation. This is appropriate for a no-argument tool.

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 imperative verb 'raporla' (report) and specifies the exact resource: TCMB EVDS and TÜİK data, covering defined indicators (Politika Faizi, TÜFE/ÜFE, Rezervler, Kur). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like openbb_makro_gostergeler, which likely targets a broader macro dataset.

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 for reporting Turkish central bank and statistical indicators, but it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it name alternatives. The indicator list and data sources suggest a context, but the agent gets no direct decision support.

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