Skip to main content
Glama

cattle-market

by ar.com.consignatarias

Ranking de actividad de consignatarias

actividad_consignatarias
Read-onlyIdempotent

Ranking de consignatarias por CABEZAS operadas en el Mercado Agroganadero (MAG, Cañuelas; mercado de referencia) en un período, con precio promedio ARS/kg por firma. Para "qué firma operó más"; NO da precio de mercado (get_precios_hacienda) ni índice diario (get_indice_novillo). Args: desde (def. 7d), hasta (hoy), categoria (NOVILLO/VACA… opc.), limite (def. 15, máx. 45).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
desdeNoFecha inicio YYYY-MM-DD (default: últimos 7 días)
hastaNoFecha fin YYYY-MM-DD (default: hoy)
limiteNoMáximo de firmas en el ranking (default 15)
categoriaNoFiltra por categoría: NOVILLO, NOVILLITO, VACA, VAQUILLONA, TORO (opcional)

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds context about time-period aggregation and ranking, which is useful beyond the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Extremely concise: two sentences with no waste. Front-loaded with purpose and includes sibling differentiators.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers input parameters and purpose well. It could mention output format explicitly, but it's implied. Given no output schema, it is sufficiently complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3. The description adds defaults (7 days for desde, 15 max 45 for limite) and clarifies the categoria parameter with examples, adding meaning.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it ranks consignatarias by heads operated in the MAG market with average price, and explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like get_precios_hacienda and get_indice_novillo.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly states when to use it ('para qué firma operó más') and what it does not do (market price, daily index), providing clear alternatives.

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

All cattle-market toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a specific, well-defined aspect of the cattle market domain. Overlaps are minimal and clearly disambiguated in descriptions (e.g., get_precios_hacienda vs. get_precios_detallados vs. get_indice_novillo). Even similar-sounding tools like calcular_arrendamiento and valuar_arrendamiento_campo have distinct purposes (simple calculation vs. valuation with currency options).

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names mix Spanish and English verb patterns (e.g., 'get_indice_novillo' vs. 'buscar_consignataria', 'contratar_pro_consignataria' vs. 'list_remates'). While each subgroup (sanidad_*, get_*) maintains internal consistency, the overall naming is not unified. However, names are still descriptive and readable.

Tool Count5/5

With 22 tools, the server covers a broad domain (prices, health, directories, valuations, alerts) without feeling bloated. Each tool earns its place, providing meaningful functionality. The count is well-scoped for the Argentine cattle market context.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the full lifecycle: market data (prices, indices, historical), consignment and slaughterhouse directories, health regulations and movement requirements, valuation tools, alerts, and even a buyer matching service. There are no obvious gaps for the stated purpose of a cattle market MCP server.

Resources