get_fx_parameters

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden. It adds useful behavioral information: auto-pagination, complete one-FX result set, and the returned value types. It implies a read-only scan operation but does not explicitly state side effects, permissions, or error behaviors.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences: the first establishes operation and output; the second gives actionable usage guidance. No filler 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?

For a read-oriented list tool with a partially descriptive schema, the description supplies the key missing facts: the result covers one FX, is auto-paginated, and returns specific value fields. It does not address error cases, but the schema covers track-selection edge cases.

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 only 56%, and the description adds little direct parameter detail. It does signal that param_index is the preferred identifier over name matching, but it does not explain fx_scope, fx_name_contains, or param_name_contains semantics beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific action and scope: 'Full parameter list for ONE FX', and enumerates return fields (index, name, normalized value, formatted display value). This distinguishes it from sibling scanners like scan_fx and mutators like set_fx_param.

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?

Explicitly instructs to 'Scan before setting parameters' and to prefer param_index over name matching, giving the agent a clear use context. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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