Central bank policy rates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it does clarify the dual read mode (bulk table vs single-economy history) and the accepted code format. However, it says nothing about update cadence, data freshness, or rate limits, leaving behavioral gaps for a data-fetch 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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the resource and scope, then states the two operating modes using a parenthetical example. No 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description still conveys the scope, the two response modes, and the parameter's effect. It stops short of describing returned fields, units, or refresh frequency, which leaves modest gaps for a data endpoint.

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% for a single maxLength-4 'country' string, yet the description compensates well by giving sample codes (us, eu, jp, gb) and explaining that the parameter switches the response from the full current table to one country's time series.

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 names a specific resource (central bank policy rates) and quantifies its scope (49 economies), plus the two shapes the result can take. It is clearly distinguishable from macro_series or funding_rates at a glance, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: supplying a country code yields that economy's history, omitting it yields the current table of all 49. There is no guidance on when to prefer this over nearby siblings like funding_rates or macro_series, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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