ficha_empresaDevuelve el perfil estructurado completo de una empresa del directorio CEMIS, identificada por su slug (o por nombre exacto/aproximado si no sabés el slug), incluyendo sus oportunidades de negocio relacionadas y las transformaciones/reformas que la afectan. Si no se encuentra, devuelve sugerencias aproximadas.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, lowering the bar. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it accepts exact/approximate names and returns approximate suggestions when no match is found. There is no contradiction with the annotations.
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 dense sentence with no filler: the main purpose is front-loaded, followed by the identification options, the contents of the response, and the fallback behavior. Every clause adds relevant information.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description must explain what the tool returns; it does so by listing the structured profile, related opportunities, and transformations, plus not-found suggestions. This is sufficient for a one-parameter read-only tool, though 'perfil estructurado completo' remains somewhat vague about the exact response structure.
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 schema has one required parameter, 'slug', with zero description coverage. The description compensates by explaining that the slug identifies the company and that an exact or approximate name can be supplied if the slug is unknown. It adds real semantic meaning without providing format examples.
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?
States a specific action and resource: returns the complete structured company profile from the CEMIS directory, identified by slug or approximate name. It also includes related business opportunities and transformations, which clearly differentiates it from sibling search-oriented 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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: to retrieve a company's full profile with related opportunities and reforms, and it explains that a slug is preferred but approximate name matching is allowed. It does not explicitly mention alternative sibling tools or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.
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 query path: general company search, full company profile, opportunity-to-company lookup, sector-to-opportunity lookup, reform impact, and list helpers. Even the related entity lookups are clearly separated by input and output.
Names are readable and consistently lowercase with underscores, but they mix verb-first conventions (buscar_empresas, listar_sectores) with noun-first descriptive names (ficha_empresa, impacto_de_reforma, empresas_por_oportunidad). The pattern is understandable but not uniform.
Seven tools is well within the ideal range and each tool covers a necessary query path for the CEMIS directory domain. There is no obvious bloat or thinness in the tool surface.
The core workflows are well covered: company search, company detail, sector/province enumeration, sector-opportunity relationships, opportunity-company relationships, and reform impact. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct way to list all reforms or all opportunities, but these can be worked around through the existing sector and reform lookup tools.