Catalogo publico de servicios de RESET Verifica: que hace cada uno, precio, inputs, si es deterministico y como se paga. NO requiere llave. Util para decidir si RESET resuelve tu problema antes de autenticarte o pagar. Dos modelos: prepago (cuenta + llave, REST o MCP, precios MXN) y x402 (pago por llamada en USDC sobre Base, sin cuenta).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 explicitly says the catalog is public, requires no key, and is meant to be consulted before authentication or payment, which strongly implies a read-only, side-effect-free operation. It does not literally say 'read-only' or describe the response shape, but the framing is clear enough.
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 three dense sentences, front-loading the core purpose ('Catalogo publico de servicios') before adding the no-key constraint and the payment models. Every sentence contributes distinct useful information with no fluff or repetition.
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 zero-parameter, read-only catalog tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it explains what the catalog contains, that it requires no key, when to use it, and outlines the two payment models. The described contents double as the expected return information, so no critical context is missing.
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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. No parameter documentation is needed; the description appropriately focuses on the tool's content and access requirements instead.
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 identifies the tool as a public catalog of RESET Verifica services and specifies exactly what it contains: what each service does, price, inputs, determinism, and payment method. It does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like consultar_catalogo or consultar_precios, so it misses the top score.
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?
It gives an explicit intended use case: consult this catalog before authenticating or paying to decide whether RESET solves the user's problem, and it notes that no key is required. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full usage guidance.
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.
Most tools fall into clear families such as validar_*, verificar_* and consultar_*, but there is semantic overlap among consultar_catalogo, catalogo_leyes and catalogo_servicios, and between acreditar_fondeo and verificar_pago since both process CEP XML. The descriptions usually clarify the intent, but an agent could still choose the wrong generic catalog or payment tool.
The dominant pattern is Spanish infinitive_noun, e.g. validar_rfc, verificar_empresa and consultar_saldo, but there are noticeable deviations such as catalogo_leyes, estado_servicio, tipo_cambio and verificacion_completa. The English-style screening_listas and screening_monitorear also break the Spanish verb pattern, making the naming readable but inconsistent.
With 30 tools, the server sits well above the recommended MCP range and will add significant context/selection overhead. The broad multi-domain scope explains some of the size, but several account/meta tools could be consolidated, and the overall surface feels heavier than ideal.
The core workflows are well covered: company/invoice/payment verification, legal search and lookup, fiscal calculations, identity validations, screening and constancy validation are all present. However, there are dead ends: crear_fondeo_x402 requires an out-of-band REST liquidation step, screening_monitorear has no management/removal counterpart, and registrar_obligacion has no list/delete tools.