brazil-macro-ai

brazil_macro_surprise

Compare a Brazilian macroeconomic release with the latest public consensus that was available before the release, with full vintage and source provenance (method_id macro_surprise_v1). The consensus is ALWAYS the last Focus survey reading published strictly before the official release timestamp — never a reading published after it, and the actual is always the FIRST release, never a later revision.

IMPORTANT: only computed for indicators with a methodologically valid,
event-specific public consensus — currently IPCA only. GDP/PIM-PF/PMC/
PMS/PNAD_UNEMPLOYMENT raise an error rather than fabricate a consensus
(use brazil_macro_actual for those — actual/momentum only, no surprise).

Args:
    indicator: currently only "IPCA" is eligible.
    reference_period: e.g. "2026-07".

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`agent_id`	No
`indicator`	Yes
`session_id`	No
`payment_token`	No
`discovery_source`	No
`reference_period`	Yes
`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

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the consensus must be strictly before the release timestamp, the actual must be the first release never a revision, and unsupported indicators raise an error rather than fabricate a consensus. This is rich, actionable behavioral context.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by important timing rules and error behavior. It is slightly redundant by stating IPCA eligibility twice, but every section serves a clear purpose and the length is justified by the tool's edge cases.

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 is complete for correct invocation: it covers eligibility, alternatives, timing semantics, and error behavior. Since an output schema exists, return-value details are not needed. It could mention edge cases like a missing consensus for a given reference period, but nothing essential for calling the tool is missing.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description compensates for the two required parameters: indicator is constrained to 'IPCA' and reference_period is given a format example ('2026-07'). The five optional parameters are not explained, but their titles and defaults make their purpose largely self-evident, so the gap is minor.

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 states a specific verb and resource: compare a Brazilian macroeconomic release with the latest prior public consensus, with vintage/provenance details and method_id macro_surprise_v1. It also differentiates from brazil_macro_actual and is clearly distinct from the sibling tools.

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 says when to use the tool (IPCA only), when not to use it (GDP/PIM-PF/PMC/PMS/PNAD_UNEMPLOYMENT), and names the alternative tool (brazil_macro_actual). It also defines the precise consensus timing rule, leaving no ambiguity about selection.

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?