Retrieve current Spanish economic indicators—IPC, EPA unemployment, GDP, registered unemployment, Euribor, USD rate, public debt, 10-year bond yield and risk premium—with period, series and source.
Último dato de coyuntura de España con periodo, serie y fuente: IPC (marcando si es avance), paro EPA, PIB corregido, paro registrado, Euríbor, dólar, deuda PDE, bono a 10 años y prima de riesgo.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.10.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose return content (period, series, source, and whether the IPC figure is an advance/flash estimate), which is genuinely useful. It does not state data freshness, units, caching, or what happens if a series is unavailable — notable gaps for a no-annotation tool, but the read-only nature is implicit and the payload description is above average.
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?
A single sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose ("Último dato de coyuntura de España") before the indicator enumeration. The list of indicators is long but each item earns its place by telling the agent exactly what data will come back; no filler.
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 annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description is the only source of truth. It covers which indicators and which metadata fields come back, but omits units, reference-period conventions, data source authority, and failure behavior — details an agent would want before relying on the numbers.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there are no semantics to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description instead spends its words on the returned content, which is the right allocation for a zero-arg tool.
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 resource ("Último dato de coyuntura de España") and enumerates exactly which indicators are covered: IPC with advance flag, EPA unemployment, corrected GDP, registered unemployment, Euribor, dollar, PDE debt, 10-year bond, risk premium. The macro-economic domain is clearly distinct from the sibling tools (empresa_nif, perfil_municipio, ckan_buscar, boe_sumario), though no sibling is named explicitly.
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?
"Último dato" implicitly scopes usage to the latest snapshot rather than historical series, which is a useful usage signal. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives (e.g., almacen_sql for custom queries). Usage must be inferred from the domain.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.