Estima la pensión pública de jubilación (Seguridad Social) según años cotizados y base reguladora. Para añadir el análisis de brecha y ahorro necesario usa "consulta_jubilacion".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| edad_actual | No | Edad actual (informativo) | |
| anos_cotizados | Yes | Años totales cotizados | |
| base_cotizacion_mensual | Yes | Base de cotización media mensual (o salario bruto mensual) en euros |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already include readOnlyHint: true. The description does not contradict this and adds no additional behavioral details beyond stating it estimates a pension. It is sufficient but not enriched.
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?
The description is two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second provides an alternative. It is front-loaded, concise, and contains no unnecessary words.
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?
Given no output schema, the description could hint at the output format (e.g., estimated monthly amount). It provides the basic purpose and alternative but lacks details on expected returns or additional factors.
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 100%, so the parameters are already well-documented. The description mentions 'años cotizados y base reguladora' but adds no new semantics beyond the schema.
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 clearly states the tool estimates the public retirement pension based on contribution years and regulatory base. It also distinguishes from the sibling 'consulta_jubilacion' by noting that the latter adds gap analysis and savings needs.
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?
The description provides a clear use case and explicitly mentions an alternative for more comprehensive analysis. However, it does not explicitly state prerequisites or when not to use the tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
There are many tools with overlapping domains (e.g., multiple retirement calculators, home buying calculators), but detailed descriptions and explicit guidance on when to use comprehensive vs. specific tools help clarify. However, the sheer number (49) still creates potential confusion for an agent.
All tools follow a consistent convention: infinitive verb or noun prefix (calcular, comparar, consulta) followed by descriptive noun phrase in snake_case. No mixed styles or irregularities.
49 tools is high but justifiable given the broad scope of Spanish financial/legal calculations. It leans toward the heavy side but remains within a manageable range for a comprehensive server.
The tool set covers a wide spectrum of personal finance: income, taxes, housing, inheritance, self-employment, investments, etc. Only minor gaps exist (e.g., no separate tool for rental income beyond the alquiler tools, but included in IRPF).
