brazil-macro-ai

brazil_focus_revisions

Detects whether Brazilian economists are revising inflation (IPCA), policy-rate (Selic), growth (PIB Total) or FX (Câmbio) expectations, and measures the speed and dispersion of those revisions — 1-week, 4-week and 13-week changes in the Focus survey median, plus a deterministic rising/falling/stable direction and accelerating/ decelerating/stable speed classification (method_id focus_revisions_v1). Built directly on Focus historical vintages — never recalculates a past date using data published after it.

Use when: assessing sentiment shifts among professional economists for
Brazil's main macro indicators, or whether a recent revision is
speeding up or slowing down.
Do not use when: you want market-implied pricing (use
get_brazil_copom_path) or a market-vs-consensus comparison (use
compare_brazil_market_vs_focus) — this tool is Focus-survey-only.
Units are NOT always basis points — check the `unit` field in the
response (bps for Selic/IPCA, percentage_points for PIB Total, BRL for
Câmbio).

Args:
    indicator: one of "Selic", "IPCA", "PIB Total", "Câmbio".
    reference_period: e.g. "2027" (the forecast year). Defaults to the
        current year.
    segment: "general" (all respondents) or "top5". Never mixed.
    as_of: optional YYYY-MM-DD date. Defaults to today.
    payment_token: required in staging ($0.05/call per pricing.yaml).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`as_of`	No
`segment`	No	general
`agent_id`	No
`indicator`	Yes
`session_id`	No
`payment_token`	No
`discovery_source`	No
`reference_period`	No
`synthetic_identity`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedSep 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely succeeds: it discloses the deterministic method (method_id focus_revisions_v1), the no-look-ahead data construction, the never-mixed segment rule, and the unit semantics. It stops short of explicit read-only/auth/rate-limit statements, but the described behavior is concrete and trustworthy.

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?

The description is dense but well-organized: a purpose paragraph, use/when guidance, unit warning, and an Args list. Every sentence adds value and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values, but it still covers methodology, exclusions, units, and parameter semantics. The tool is complex enough that this level of context is necessary, and nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, and the description compensates strongly by explaining every user-facing parameter: allowed indicator values, reference_period format/default, segment options, as_of format/default, and payment_token cost/requirement. Even without schema descriptions, an agent can construct a valid call and understand constraints like 'Never mixed'.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Detects') and a precise target ('whether Brazilian economists are revising inflation (IPCA), policy-rate (Selic), growth (PIB Total) or FX (Câmbio) expectations'), then names the exact outputs (speed, dispersion, direction, classification). It also distinguishes itself as Focus-survey-only, which separates it from siblings like get_brazil_copom_path.

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?

Explicit 'Use when' and 'Do not use when' sections tell the agent exactly when to select this tool and name two alternative tools with their distinct purposes. The additional 'never recalculates a past date using data published after it' warning clarifies a critical data-correctness precondition.

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

All brazil-macro-ai tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?