calcular_correcao_monetaria

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It mentions fetching historical series from the Central Bank of Brazil, which implies external calls and potential latency, but does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, whether it has side effects, or any error conditions. This is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 sentences long, directly states the core function, and adds a brief use-case context. There is no extraneous information or repetition; it is concise and well-structured.

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?

The output schema is marked as present, so the description need not enumerate return values. The tool's purpose, input requirements, and data source are covered, making it complete for a simple calculation tool. A slight deduction because it does not mention potential edge cases (e.g., date range constraints, index availability), but these are not critical for basic usage.

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 100% with clear descriptions for all parameters (valor, indice, data_inicio, data_fim). The tool description adds context about the 'indice' default and possible values, but this is already present in the schema. The baseline of 3 applies since the schema fully documents the parameters; no additional semantic insights are provided.

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 calculates monetary correction of a value between two dates using IPCA or Selic, and mentions its utility for updating debts, contracts, and tax obligations. The verb 'Calcula' is specific and the resource (value, dates, index) is well-defined, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implicitly suggests use cases (updating debts, contracts, tax obligations) but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools that also handle indices (e.g., taxa_selic, ipca_periodo). It lacks clear guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, such as when a full correction factor is needed versus a raw index query.

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