estimar_rendimiento_cetes

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 data source (latest auction) and horizon (28 days), but says nothing about return format, currency of the result, or the assumption that the value only refreshes at auctions. Partial behavioral disclosure for a no-annotation tool.

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 short clauses, fully front-loaded with no filler. The bilingual duplication ('Cetes estimate') adds little but does not bloat the text.

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 simple one-parameter computation tool with no output schema, the description covers what and how it computes but leaves the parameter meaning and the shape of the result unaddressed. Adequate but with visible gaps.

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 0% and the single required parameter monto_mxn is never mentioned in the description. The name implies an amount in MXN, so an agent can loosely infer it, but the description does not explain how the amount feeds the yield calculation, leaving the compensation burden unmet.

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 (estima) plus resource (rendimiento de CETES), with the method and horizon spelled out: 28-day yield using the latest auction. An agent can tell this is a yield-estimate tool rather than a raw rate fetcher, though it does not explicitly name which sibling (e.g., get_tasa_hoy) it should be preferred over.

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 says what the tool computes but never states when to choose it over the many sibling rate/convert tools (get_tasa_hoy, get_curva_tiie, etc.). The 28-day horizon implies a use case for CETES investment estimates, but no explicit when/when-not guidance is provided.

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