Tipo de cambio FIX (USD/MXN) oficial de Banxico, por fecha (opcional) y con conversion de un monto (opcional). Cuesta DATO. Devuelve la fecha del dato y la serie oficial.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fecha | No | ||
| monto | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses a cost side effect ('Cuesta DATO') and the output shape ('Devuelve la fecha del dato y la serie oficial'). However, it does not clarify default behavior when no date is supplied, whether the converted amount is returned when monto is provided, or possible error cases.
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 that front-loads the purpose, then adds optional parameters, cost, and return value. Every phrase earns its place, with no redundant exposition.
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 tool with two optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what the rate is, the optional inputs, the cost, and the returned data. Remaining gaps like date format and default behavior are minor given the tool's simplicity.
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%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It does add value by tying 'fecha' to date filtering and 'monto' to amount conversion, and by marking both as optional. It does not specify the expected date format or the semantics of an empty/default date, which leaves some ambiguity.
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 resource: the official Banxico FIX exchange rate for USD/MXN, with optional date filtering and amount conversion. It also states the return value ('Devuelve la fecha del dato y la serie oficial'). It lacks an explicit verb like 'obtener' or 'consultar', but the intent is unmistakable and 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly marks both parameters as optional ('por fecha (opcional) y con conversion de un monto (opcional)'), giving clear context for when to use the tool and how to vary the call. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but none of the siblings appear to provide the same exchange-rate functionality.
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.