Crea una orden de fondeo por SPEI: regresa la referencia, la CLABE, el beneficiario y el monto EXACTO a depositar. tipo 'paquete' (monto en MXN, minimo 500, multiplos de 100) o 'individual' (servicio COMPANY/CFDI/SPEI/COMBO/UTIL y cantidad). No tiene costo; el cargo es el deposito SPEI.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tipo | Yes | ||
| monto | No | ||
| cantidad | No | ||
| servicio | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It discloses that the tool returns specific payment details, that it has no cost, that the only charge is the SPEI deposit, and that amounts must follow minimum/multiple rules. It does not cover persistence, reversibility, or permissions, but the core behavior is transparently described.
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 dense sentences with no filler. Key output information is front-loaded, and conditional parameter usage is packed into the second sentence efficiently. Every clause adds useful information.
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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description provides the key return values, cost expectations, and conditional parameter requirements. The main gap is that the conditional requirement of `servicio` and `cantidad` for `tipo='individual'` is not reflected in the schema, and `cantidad` semantics are not fully explained, but the description is still mostly complete for a caller.
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%, but the description compensates well by explaining the meaning of `tipo`, the valid service values (COMPANY/CFDI/SPEI/COMBO/UTIL), and the constraints for `monto` (MXN, minimum 500, multiples of 100). It leaves `cantidad` somewhat implicit and does not fully define the relationship between `cantidad` and `servicio`, but it adds substantial meaning beyond the raw 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'crea una orden de fondeo por SPEI' and names the exact return values (referencia, CLABE, beneficiario, monto exacto). It also distinguishes this SPEI-based funding order from the sibling tool crear_fondeo_x402, making it clear which tool is being described.
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 clear usage context by defining the two `tipo` modes, 'paquete' and 'individual', and their required parameters and constraints. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of a 5, but the guidance is practical and sufficient for this 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.
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.