mcp-colombia

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool simulates credit and outputs key metrics (monthly payment, total cost, credit cost), which is useful. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, data sources, or whether the simulation is real-time or based on cached data. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operation.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, consisting of two concise sentences. The first sentence states the tool's purpose and scope, and the second specifies the outputs. There is no wasted language, and every sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.

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 tool's complexity (simulation with 3 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and outputs but lacks behavioral context and detailed usage guidelines. Without an output schema, it should ideally explain return values more thoroughly, but it does specify key metrics. This makes it adequate but with clear gaps for a simulation tool.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter definitions (monto, cuotas, proposito). The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining parameter interactions or constraints. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 purpose: 'Simula un crédito de consumo o libre inversión en los principales bancos y fintechs de Colombia' (simulates a consumer or free investment credit across major Colombian banks and fintechs). It specifies the action (simulate), resource (credit), and scope (Colombian financial institutions). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'finanzas_comparar_cdt' or 'finanzas_comparar_cuentas', which are also financial comparison tools but for different products.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the tool's function but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions (e.g., when to use 'finanzas_comparar_cdt' for certificates of deposit instead). Usage is implied only through the tool's name and description, with no explicit context for selection among siblings.

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