computrabajo-jobsSearch Computrabajo (Mexico, Colombia, Chile, Argentina, Peru) by keyword and get public job listings: title, company, location, URL, posted-when. — $0.02/call, x402 (USDC on base).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes | List of "cc:query" strings, e.g. "mx:ventas", "co:desarrollador". Supported cc: mx, co, cl, ar, pe. | |
| maxConcurrency | No | How many queries to process in parallel. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety profile is covered. Description adds meaningful behavior: lists returned fields, notes 'public' listings, and includes price per call ($0.02) — all beyond annotations. No mention of failure modes or pagination, but the core behavior is well-disclosed.
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?
Two concise sentences – first states purpose, second adds cost/geo context. Every word earns its place, no repetition of schema details.
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 read-only search tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, countries, and return fields. It doesn't discuss pagination, error handling, or result limits, but given the minimal scope and strong annotations, it's nearly complete. Slight deduction for missing limits on result count.
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 already covers 100% of parameters with descriptions and examples (cc:query format, maxConcurrency range/default). Description adds only generic 'by keyword' phrasing, which doesn't meaningfully extend the schema's detailed examples like 'mx:ventas'.
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?
Description uses specific verb 'Search' + resource 'Computrabajo' + specifies countries and return fields (title, company, location, URL, posted-when). This distinguishes it from sibling job scrapers like boss-az or xing-jobs by naming the platform and geography.
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?
Description clearly implies use case (keyword search on Computrabajo LatAm) but provides no explicit when/when-not guidance or mention of alternatives among sibling job tools. It relies on the country list to guide selection rather than comparing to other scrapers.
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.
Many tools are distinct by region/source (e.g., otodom-warsaw vs. imovirtual-lisbon), but there are overlapping categories: multiple real estate, job, SEC, and crypto tools. Watchers/alerts (job-alert, re-new-listing-alert, tender-alert) could be confused with their corresponding search tools, and token tools (live-price-oracle, token-launch-radar, rug-pull-scorer) have similar purposes.
Names follow no consistent pattern: some are hyphenated source-location (emlakjet-istanbul), some are generic descriptors (job-alert, pricing_info uses underscore), and some are verbose phrases (official-gazette-regulatory-action-router). There is no consistent verb_noun or noun structure, making it hard to predict what a tool does from its name.
With 36 tools, the server is in the 'too many' range (25+). The broad 'Market Data' theme partially justifies the count, but it feels bloated with many single-country listings and overlapping watchers that could be consolidated.
The domain is loosely defined as 'market data,' spanning real estate, jobs, tenders, SEC filings, crypto, and clinical trials. While it covers niche areas well, there are notable gaps: no general stock/ETF quotes, no forex/commodities data, and no cross-country aggregate search. The mix of scrapers and alerts leaves the surface feeling uneven.