get_tasa_hoy

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden; it discloses what data comes back (target rate plus three TIIE/Cetes tenors), which is the most useful behavioral fact here. It says nothing about read-only nature, units, timezone of 'today', data source, or freshness — gaps that a no-annotation tool should ideally fill.

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, front-loaded with the resource and its contents, with no filler. The Spanish/English duplication is mild redundancy but aids cross-language matching.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description is the only place return shape and behavior could be explained; it names the series but not units, currency, or the exact date semantics of 'today'. Adequate for a simple lookup, but not fully self-contained.

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 is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline for a 0-param tool applies. The schema is trivially complete.

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 (get) and resource (reference rates for today) and enumerates the exact series: objetivo, TIIE 28/91, Cetes 28. The 'hoy' scope implicitly separates it from the sibling get_tasas_rango, though the description never names that alternative outright.

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 only implied by the temporal qualifier 'hoy' — the agent can infer this is the current-snapshot tool versus get_tasas_rango for history, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative.

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