Devuelve los valores fiscales vigentes verificados de Mexico para un anio (UMA, salario minimo, tasas de recargo y parcialidades), cada uno con su fuente oficial. Es el 'moat': datos mantenidos y verificados contra DOF/LIF/CFF. Informativo, no asesoria fiscal.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| anio | No | Anio fiscal. Default: el mas reciente cargado. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true. The description adds value by explaining the data is 'mantenidos y verificados contra DOF/LIF/CFF' and that it is non-advisory ('Informativo, no asesoria fiscal'). No contradictions.
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 sentences with the main action front-loaded. The 'moat' metaphor adds character but is not excessive. Generally concise and to the point.
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?
Without an output schema, the description lists the returned values (UMA, salario minimo, tasas) and notes their official sources. This is sufficient for a simple read tool with one optional parameter.
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 coverage is 100% with a clear description for the single parameter 'anio' (default: most recent). The description does not add further parameter details, so baseline 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 verb 'Devuelve' (returns) and the specific resource 'valores fiscales vigentes verificados de Mexico'. It lists the exact items returned (UMA, salario minimo, tasas) and distinguishes from siblings by positioning itself as the 'moat' of verified data.
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 implies the tool is for informational reference ('Informativo, no asesoria fiscal') but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. No exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools are provided.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct fiscal or labor calculation (aguinaldo, CFDI validation, IMSS, ISR estimation, etc.) with no overlap. The descriptions clearly differentiate their purposes.
All tools follow a consistent 'fiscal_<noun>' pattern, using snake_case and clear, domain-specific nouns (e.g., fiscal_aguinaldo, fiscal_isr_retencion). No deviation.
10 tools cover the essential calculations for Mexican fiscal and payroll management (aguinaldo, finiquito, IMSS, ISR, CFDI, etc.) without being excessive or insufficient.
The set covers major tax and labor calculations but lacks a few common tools like PTU (profit sharing) or IVA (VAT) handling. However, it is fairly comprehensive for its stated scope.