pontofato

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Índice' weakly implies a read-only listing, but the description does not state what it returns, whether it is safe, or how it behaves. This is minimal and mostly implicit.

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 very brief and free of fluff, which is structurally clean, but it is under-specified to the point that it is barely more than the tool's name. It is concise but not effectively informative.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and only this sparse noun phrase, the description is not complete enough. An agent still has to guess what the index contains, whether it returns a list of endpoints, or how it fits with the sibling tools.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden. A baseline of 4 is appropriate because there are no inputs for the description to explain.

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 'Índice da API PontoFato' essentially restates the tool name 'api_index' and adds only the product name. It provides no verb or explicit action, so an agent gets no real behavioral clarity beyond what the name already implies.

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?

There is no guidance about when this tool should be used versus alternatives. Even though the sibling list suggests api_index is likely an entry point for discovering endpoints, the description never says that or contrasts it with the other resource tools.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only states that a textual search is performed and does not mention matching behavior, whether results are limited/paginated, required input formats, or the structure of the response.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler or redundant wording. It is front-loaded and efficient, though its brevity leaves important semantic and behavioral gaps that are scored elsewhere.

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?

For a tool with three undocumented parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and many similar sibling tools, a four-word description is far from sufficient. The agent has no information about expected query values, filter semantics, return format, or when this tool is the right choice.

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 0%, and the description does not explain q, uf, or cidade. The property names are suggestive—q is likely the search text and uf/cidade are likely geographical filters—but the description adds no explicit semantic meaning beyond what the raw schema already shows.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Busca textual de logradouro' clearly indicates a textual search over street addresses. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like cep, vizinhanca, or raio, but the resource scope is understandable.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus the nearby location-related siblings such as cep, raio, or vizinhanca. The intended use is only implied by the phrase 'textual search', with no explicit alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It communicates that the tool provides CNEFE points with IBGE lat/lon, implying a read-only lookup, but it does not disclose response shape, error behavior, or any limitations.

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 very short and free of filler; every word contributes to identifying the tool's purpose. It is concise rather than merely underspecified, though it lacks a complete sentence structure.

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?

For a one-parameter lookup tool, the description plus schema covers the essential invocation details. However, there is no output schema and no expansion of the CNEFE acronym, so an agent unfamiliar with the domain may not fully anticipate the returned data shape.

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?

The schema fully documents the only parameter, including the expected format ('8 dígitos, com ou sem hífen'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the schema-driven baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies the resource ('Pontos CNEFE'), the input ('CEP'), and the key data attribute ('lat/lon IBGE'). It stops short of using an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'lists', but the meaning is clear enough to distinguish this from a generic CEP lookup tool.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus any sibling such as 'raio', 'proximo', or 'buscar'. The only implied context is that the caller must provide a CEP, which is already visible in the input schema.

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

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

Annotations are absent, so the description bears the full burden. It hints at a cost and a Turnstile mechanism, which could relate to rate limits or human verification, but these are so cryptic that they provide little actionable behavioral transparency. No disclosures about required permissions, side effects, or response behavior are made.

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 very short, but it is under-specified rather than concise. The phrase '($0.10 x402)' and 'Turnstile' are not self-explanatory, and the sentence does not effectively communicate the tool's function or invocation requirements.

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?

For a tool with 3 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is grossly inadequate. An agent cannot determine the tool's purpose, parameter semantics, or expected behavior, making successful invocation unlikely.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the meaning or expected format of 'name', 'email', or 'message'. With no compensating parameter information, an agent cannot reliably construct valid invocations.

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 'Contato agente ($0.10 x402) ou humano (Turnstile)' merely restates the tool name 'contact' in Portuguese and adds a cryptic note about agent/human contact and a price. It lacks a clear verb and resource, and does not distinguish the tool's purpose from any sibling without inference.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools such as 'buscar', 'cep', or 'empresas'. No context, conditions, or exclusions are provided; the agent is left to guess whether this is the appropriate tool for a given user request.

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

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden for safety and behavior. It never states that this is a read/list operation, how pagination with `page` behaves, whether results are capped at 50 items, or what the response looks like; the only disclosed constraint is the CEP scope.

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 a single short noun phrase with no filler or repetition. Every word contributes to the scope, and the key resource and filter are front-loaded.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and nine sibling tools including `cep`, `raio`, `proximo`, and `vizinhanca`, a one-line noun phrase is not enough. The agent is left to infer pagination, response shape, and the boundary between this tool and the nearby search/radius tools.

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?

The schema documents `page` (0-based, 50 per page) but leaves `cep` without a description. The phrase 'neste CEP' adds some meaning to `cep` by identifying it as the postal code used for filtering, but it gives no format guidance and says nothing about `page` beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'Estabelecimentos da Receita neste CEP.' states that the tool returns Receita (likely Receita Federal) establishments scoped by a postal code. It names the resource and the filtering dimension, so it is not a tautology, but it is a noun phrase and does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as `cep`, `raio`, or `buscar`.

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 only usage signal is the CEP scoping, which implies use when the user has a postal code. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of when to prefer siblings like `proximo` or `raio` instead.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description states only a static data scope and does not say whether this is a read operation, what it returns, how results are structured, or any caveats.

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 short and free of filler, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. A single ambiguous noun phrase does not provide enough structured information for reliable tool selection.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should carry more context. It leaves the meaning of 'origem' and 'cobertura' unclear and gives no indication of expected output or behavior, making it incomplete even for a zero-parameter tool.

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?

The schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics because there are no parameters to clarify.

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 'Saúde da origem e cobertura por UF' names a resource (health/coverage by Brazilian state) and is not a tautology, but it lacks a verb and leaves 'origem' and 'cobertura' ambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from the nine sibling tools.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like raio, unidades, or vizinhanca. No exclusions, prerequisites, or routing conditions are provided.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself, but it only states the core nearest-point lookup. It does not mention output format, error behavior, coordinate range expectations, or even that this is a read-only operation. There is no contradiction with annotations, but the behavioral disclosure is minimal.

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 a single, short phrase with no wasted words, making it very concise. It is front-loaded with the key resource and operation, though it is so terse that it borders on under-specification, which prevents a perfect score.

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 annotations, no output schema, and only two bare numeric parameters, the description leaves critical gaps: return format, no-result handling, and how the query relates to the Brazilian CNEFE dataset. The presence of several geospatial sibling tools increases the need for more context than this one-liner provides.

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?

The schema provides zero description coverage for 'lat' and 'lon', so the description must compensate. It adds that these are the coordinates used to find the nearest point, which is a slight increment over the bare parameter names, but it omits important semantics such as units (decimal degrees), required range, or coordinate system.

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 phrase 'Ponto CNEFE mais perto de lat/lon' clearly identifies a spatial nearest-neighbor lookup for a specific resource (CNEFE points), distinguishing it from a generic geocoding or radius query. It is concise and not a tautology of the tool name, though it lacks a full sentence with an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'finds'.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool compared to the sibling tools such as 'raio', 'vizinhanca', or 'cep'. There are no alternatives named, no exclusions, and no conditions that would trigger the agent to choose this tool over another.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful behavioral context: the result includes distance and CNEFE points, and the service is free. However, it does not clarify whether cep or lat/lon is required, how both are handled, or any limits/errors beyond radius constraints.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler. Key information—what is returned, how the point is specified, and cost—is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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?

For a simple radius query, the description covers the main inputs and outputs. However, it does not state that at least one location parameter (cep or lat/lon) is effectively required, what 'pontos CNEFE' means, or whether responses are paginated. This leaves some ambiguity for an agent calling a tool with no required parameters and no output schema.

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 descriptions cover 'cep' and 'raio', but not 'lat' or 'lon'. The description partially compensates by explaining that the point can be a CEP or lat/lon, and that the radius is in meters. It does not detail coordinate formats or the exclusivity of 'cep' vs 'lat/lon'.

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 what the tool does: it returns CEPs within N meters of a point (specified by CEP or lat/lon), including distance and CNEFE points. It identifies the resource and operation, but lacks an explicit verb and does not differentiate it from siblings like 'proximo' or 'buscar'.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or why an agent would choose 'raio' over sibling tools such as 'proximo' or 'buscar'.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does contribute one concrete behavioral trait: 'Paginado', meaning results are paginated. It also discloses that returned units include complemento and espécie. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, how pagination works, or how the optional filters affect results.

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 extremely terse and front-loaded: it states the resource, gives examples, and adds the pagination note in two short phrases with no filler. It loses one point because the brevity leaves important invocation details to be inferred.

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?

For a tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It omits how the optional parameters interact, pagination limits, and how it differs from the sibling lookup tools, so an agent cannot reliably construct complex or correct calls.

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 only 20% (only cep is described). The tool description does not explain limit, offset, numero, or logradouro; 'Paginado' only weakly implies limit/offset. Thus the description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 identifies a specific resource ('Unidades CNEFE de um CEP') and gives examples of the unit types (apartamento, loja), along with included data (complemento e espécie). It is clear about what the tool returns, though it lacks an explicit verb and does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools such as cep or buscar.

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 no guidance on when to use unidades versus alternatives like cep, buscar, raio, or vizinhanca. It never states exclusions or prerequisites, so an agent must infer selection context from the tool name and the terse phrase.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses quota and pricing behavior (10/day free per IP, then $0.05), but it does not clarify whether the operation is read-only, what the response contains, whether pagination exists, or how errors and rate limits behave. The ambiguous 'baixadas' term also leaves side effects unclear.

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 compact and front-loads the main selection criteria, and the pricing sentence adds useful practical information with little waste. However, the first sentence is telegraphic and ambiguous, which prevents a perfect score.

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?

For a tool with 6 parameters, no required fields, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin. It omits how to specify the center (CEP vs coordinates), what fields are returned, and what the ambiguous statuses mean. The quota note is helpful but does not make the definition complete.

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 coverage is 67%, and the description mostly paraphrases parameters already documented in the schema (raio, CNAE, 'aberturas recentes' for desde). It adds no meaning for the undocumented lat/lon parameters and does not explain how the center of the radius must be specified. This fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 names the resource (empresas) and core filters (raio, CNAE, aberturas recentes, distância), but it lacks an explicit verb and uses ambiguous terms like 'abertas e baixadas' that could mean company statuses or downloaded records. It also does not distinguish itself from sibling tools such as 'raio' or 'proximo'.

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 intended use case is implied: query active companies within a radius by CNAE and recency. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus siblings, when not to use it, or how to choose between CEP and lat/lon as the center.

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