ar_cerCoeficiente de Estabilización de Referencia del BCRA para una fecha (default hoy).
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "ar_cer"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fecha | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses only the default date behavior; it says nothing about authentication, rate limits, error handling, historical/future date validity, or the return format of the coefficient.
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?
A single sentence that front-loads the resource name and immediately clarifies the date parameter and its default. No extraneous words.
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 one-parameter lookup with no output schema or annotations, the description identifies the resource and default date but omits what the returned value represents, its precision, or any behavioral constraints. It is minimally adequate but leaves gaps for an agent to infer.
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 for the single parameter by naming it (fecha) and stating its default (hoy). The date format is not explained in the description, though the schema's pattern covers it structurally.
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 names the specific resource (CER, the BCRA's reference stabilization coefficient) and the date scope, making it distinct from siblings like ar_uva or ar_dolar. It lacks an explicit verb, but for a data lookup the noun phrase is sufficient to understand what is retrieved.
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 only usage hint is the default value for the date ('default hoy'). There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ar_uva or ar_inflacion, and no conditions or exclusions are stated.
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.