Indicadores macroeconômicos brasileiros oficiais: prime_rate (meta Selic definida pelo Copom, em % ao ano) ou inflation (IPCA acumulado em 12 meses, que também traz a variação do último mês). Com opção de série histórica diária ou mensal.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end | No | ||
| start | No | ||
| country | No | ||
| indicator | Yes | ||
| historical | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by noting that inflation also returns the last month's variation and that historical series can be daily or monthly, which is behavior beyond 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?
The description is a single sentence that delivers core information without redundancy, though the parentheticals make it slightly dense. It front-loads the main purpose and remains reasonably concise.
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?
With no output schema and five parameters, the description covers the main indicator semantics and historical series option but lacks practical details such as date formats, country default, and response structure. It is adequate but incomplete for self-contained use.
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 description adds meaning to the 'indicator' parameter by defining both enum values and mentions the 'historical' option. However, it does not explain the format or purpose of 'start', 'end', or 'country', and with 0% schema coverage, these parameters remain underdocumented.
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 identifies the tool as providing official Brazilian macroeconomic indicators, specifying 'prime_rate' (Selic target) and 'inflation' (IPCA). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on macro data rather than crypto, currency, or quotes, but it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'fetch', making it slightly less direct.
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 use for Brazilian macro indicators but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions. It provides context (official Brazilian macro data) but no direct guidance on when not to use it or which sibling to choose instead.
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 has a clearly distinct purpose: authenticate and connect are separate (login vs status), the mercado_* tools each target a specific asset class or function (crypto, currency, listing, macro, quote, ticker search), and platform tools like marketplace, report_bug, show_version, and toolkit_info are unambiguous. There is no meaningful overlap that would cause an agent to select the wrong tool.
The naming is mixed: financial tools consistently use the 'mercado_' prefix, but platform tools use a variety of conventions—single words (authenticate, connect, marketplace), verb_noun with underscores (report_bug, show_version), and nouns (toolkit_info). While readable, this inconsistency is noticeable and not as uniform as a strong verb_noun pattern.
At 12 tools, the count is within a reasonable range, but roughly half of the tools are platform-management concerns (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) rather than financial data. This makes the set feel heavier and less focused than a pure market-data server, though it's not excessive.
The financial data tools cover a broad range: quotes, screening, crypto, exchange rates, macro indicators, and ticker discovery—sufficient for a Brazilian market data server. Some potential gaps like news or portfolio management are out of scope, and the platform tools add extra utility, leaving no critical missing operations for the core purpose.