VeraData

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the cost ($0.10 USDC via x402) but lacks details on failure modes, data freshness, latency, or other behavioral traits.

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 no waste. The purpose is front-loaded, and every word contributes to understanding.

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 annotations or output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the output structure, error handling, or how to use the x_payment parameter, leaving gaps for an agent.

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 50% (2 of 4 params have descriptions). The description adds meaning for 'sector' and 'country' by specifying outputs, but does not clarify 'query' or 'x_payment' beyond the schema.

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 provides LATAM market context (market_size, key_players, regulations, growth signals) from sector and country inputs, distinguishing it from siblings like vera_entity, vera_rates, and vera_sanctions.

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?

Usage is implied: use when needing LATAM market context for a sector and country. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives are provided, relying on sibling tool names for differentiation.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

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 that the tool costs $0.03 USDC via x402 and returns specific fields. However, it does not state whether the tool is read-only or modifies state, nor does it explain rate limits, authentication, or the meaning of the x_payment parameter. The behavioral disclosure is adequate but incomplete.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, 25 words. The first sentence states the core purpose and sources, the second lists outputs and cost. No filler or redundancy, and key information is front-loaded.

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?

Given 4 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description provides a useful overview of inputs and outputs but omits important details: the role of x_payment, how to choose between name and identifier query strategies, confirmation that country is required, and a complete list of returned fields. It is functional but not fully complete for a tool with moderate complexity.

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 50% (name and identifier have descriptions; country and x_payment do not). The description adds context by mentioning country codes (CO, MX, BR, CL, PE) and identifier types (NIT, CNPJ, RFC) but does not explain the x_payment parameter at all. It partially compensates for the schema gaps but leaves key parameters undocumented.

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 as company enrichment from LATAM public registries, listing specific sources (RUES CO, CNPJ BR, RFC MX) and returned fields (NIT/CNPJ, status, representative, industry). It distinguishes this tool from siblings (e.g., vera_context, vera_rates, vera_sanctions) by its focus on entity data enrichment. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'Get' or 'Enrich', slightly reducing clarity.

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 cases when company details are needed from LATAM registries, and the sibling list provides context for alternatives. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus others, nor does it specify prerequisites or when not to use it. The guidance is implied but not explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions cost ($0.02 USDC via x402) and data types returned, but omits details such as rate limits, whether the tool is read-only, data freshness, error handling, or authentication requirements beyond the x_payment parameter.

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 concise sentences, front-loading the core purpose and key details (countries, data outputs, pricing). No filler or redundant 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?

Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should provide more details on return format, how signals map to specific rates, and the exact behavior of the x_payment parameter. While the purpose is clear, the description lacks completeness for an agent to reliably use this tool without additional exploration.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds context about the outputs (FX rates, benchmark rates, inflation) but does not elaborate on the 'signals' parameter or payment workflow beyond the schema. This meets the baseline for adequate parameter documentation.

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?

Description clearly states the tool returns real-time LATAM central bank rates for specific countries (CO, MX, BR, CL, PE) and lists data types (FX rates, benchmark rates, inflation). It differentiates from sibling tools (vera_context, vera_entity, vera_sanctions) which focus on other domains.

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?

Usage is implied by the description (e.g., use when needing LATAM rates), but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or how it compares to alternatives. No exclusions or preconditions are mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions cost ($0.05 USDC via x402) and output format (risk_score, audit hash), but does not state whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or requires authentication.

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 extremely concise, with two sentences that front-load the key purpose and output. Every word adds value.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, data sources, output fields, and cost. However, it omits parameter details and usage context, leaving gaps for an agent to fully understand when and how to invoke it.

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 50%, meaning two parameters (type and x_payment) have descriptions only in schema. The tool description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. It does not explain the meaning of any parameter.

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 does 'Global sanctions screening for LATAM operations' and lists specific sanction lists (OFAC, UN, EU, UK) with entry count. It distinguishes from sibling tools like vera_context or vera_entity by specifying the screening purpose.

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 usage for sanctions screening in LATAM but provides no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives, or when not to use. It lacks exclusions or use-case boundaries.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.