Consulta cualquier serie del BCRP por su código.
Args:
codigo: Código de la serie, por ejemplo `PD04640PD`.
desde: Fecha inicial YYYY-MM-DD; por defecto, hace 30 días.
hasta: Fecha final YYYY-MM-DD; por defecto, hoy.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| desde | No | ||
| hasta | No | ||
| codigo | Yes |
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 behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the default date window ('hace 30 días' to 'hoy') and the read-only nature implied by 'Consulta', but says nothing about authentication, rate limits, error behavior for unknown codes, or the data frequency returned.
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?
One front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a tight per-argument list. Every line adds information the schema does not carry, with no filler or repetition.
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 three-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the parameter side is well covered but the description never indicates what a call returns (observations, units, frequency) or the failure modes. Adequate but with clear gaps given the absence of both annotations and an output schema.
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%, yet the description documents all three parameters: a concrete example series code (`PD04640PD`), the YYYY-MM-DD date format for both date bounds, and their defaults. It compensates well for the empty schema, though it omits what happens when codigo is invalid or when desde is after hasta.
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 verb and resource ('Consulta cualquier serie del BCRP por su código'), and the scope word 'cualquier' signals it covers arbitrary series rather than one fixed indicator. It does not explicitly name or contrast with the sibling tipo_cambio, which is the nearest alternative, so it stops short of a 5.
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 scope statement plus the documented defaults (last 30 days through today), so an agent can infer the general-purpose query case. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of tipo_cambio as the alternative for the exchange-rate series.
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.