Skip to main content
Glama

cattle-market

by ar.com.consignatarias

valuar_arrendamiento_campo

valuar_arrendamiento_campo
Read-onlyIdempotent

¿Cuánto cuesta arrendar un campo de 3.500 has en Corrientes? Canon de arrendamiento ganadero al índice oficial del MAG (haciinfo000013): anual y mensual, en ARS y USD. Con kg_ha_anio pactado da el canon exacto; sin él, escenarios de 40 a 100 kg/ha/año. GRATIS con cupo diario por origen; sin cupo, US$0,10 en USDC vía x402: https://www.consignatarias.com.ar/api/x402/valuar-arrendamiento. Params: hectareas, kg_ha_anio (opcional), provincia (opcional).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hectareasYesSuperficie en hectáreas (1 a 1.000.000)
provinciaNoProvincia (opcional; el canon por zona/aptitud se pacta, no hay valor oficial provincial)
kg_ha_anioNoCanon pactado en kg de novillo por ha por año (opcional; sin él se responden escenarios)

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and no destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context: free tier with daily quota (by origin), paid option with USDC, and the specific index used. No contradictions.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single paragraph that front-loads a concrete example. It is informative without being verbose, though it could be slightly more structured with line breaks for clarity. Still, it earns its sentences.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description explains the return format (annual/monthly canon in ARS and USD). For a 3-parameter tool, it covers scenarios, pricing, and index source. Missing details on error handling but complete enough for expected usage.

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?

Schema covers all parameters with basic descriptions. The description adds meaning: example values (3,500 has in Corrientes), the effect of kg_ha_anio (exact vs scenario range 40-100), and units (ARS/USD). This goes beyond the schema.

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 the tool values (calculates) the cost of renting a field in Corrientes, using a specific index (MAG). It gives an example query and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by mentioning specific parameters and purpose.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explains when to use the optional kg_ha_anio parameter (without it, scenarios are returned) and mentions the free tier with daily quota. It does not explicitly list when to avoid this tool, but the context and examples provide clear guidance.

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