Consulta informações de um CPF brasileiro. Retorna nome, data de nascimento e gênero. Requer autenticação via API key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cpf | Yes | CPF a ser consultado (apenas números ou formatado) | |
| api_key | No | Sua API key do CPFHub (opcional se configurada via env) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that authentication via API key is required and specifies the output fields. It does not detail error handling or confirm read-only behavior, but 'consulta' implies a safe read operation, making the description reasonably transparent.
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 sentences long, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by return fields and authentication. Every sentence provides necessary information without waste.
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?
The tool has no output schema, so the description correctly explains what is returned (nome, data de nascimento, gênero) and mentions the auth prerequisite. It does not cover error cases or response format, but for a simple lookup tool with two parameters, this is largely 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?
The input schema already fully describes both parameters (cpf and api_key) with 100% coverage. The description adds the auth requirement context but does not elaborate on parameter syntax or formatting beyond what the schema provides, so the 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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Consulta informações') and resource ('CPF brasileiro'), and lists the returned fields (nome, data de nascimento, gênero). It is distinct from the sibling get_quota_info, which focuses on quota information.
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 context for when to use the tool (querying Brazilian CPF information) and notes the auth requirement via API key. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling tool is obviously different in purpose.
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.
The two tools are completely distinct: one retrieves quota/plan information, the other performs a CPF lookup. There is no overlap in their purposes, making selection unambiguous.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (get_quota_info, lookup_cpf). The naming style is uniform and predictable.
With only 2 tools, the server feels thin for a CPF lookup service, but it covers the essential actions (lookup and quota check). The count is borderline acceptable for the narrow scope.
The core functionality (lookup_cpf) and a supporting quota tool are present, but the surface lacks potentially expected operations like batch lookup, history, or detailed report generation, leaving noticeable gaps for a fuller service.
