Рыночные курсы

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool returns rates, but does not mention that it is a read-only operation, whether authentication is required, or any side effects. The lack of detail leaves significant behavioral ambiguity, though it is not misleading.

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, concise sentence that directly states the purpose. It is not verbose and any additional information might be unnecessary for such a simple tool. However, it could potentially add a bit more context without becoming lengthy.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description is the only source of information. It states the core function but lacks details about the structure of the returned rates (e.g., currency pairs, format, whether it's a list). It is minimally adequate but leaves room for interpretation about the exact response.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain any. According to the calibration, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information because none exists, which is acceptable.

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: it provides current conversion rates used by the wallet. It is specific about the resource (wallet) and action (retrieving rates), avoiding tautology. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like wata_terminal_rates, which also deals with rates, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention alternative tools, conditions for use, or any exclusions. An agent would have no idea whether to choose this or wata_terminal_rates based solely on the description.

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