get_tasas_rango

Does 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 one meaningful behavioral constraint the schema lacks: the 365-day maximum range. Beyond that it says nothing about return format, spread calculation basis, auth requirements, or error behavior, leaving significant gaps.

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 compact bilingual phrases, front-loaded with the resource and the key constraint. Every element earns its place, though the duplicated Spanish/English text is slightly redundant for an agent.

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 2-param range tool with no output schema and no annotations, the definition covers the essentials (what it returns, the range cap, date format) but omits when-to-use guidance and any return-shape hints. Adequate but with clear gaps given the absent structured metadata.

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% for the two required date parameters, so the description must compensate. It does add the expected date format (yyyy-MM-dd) and implies the range semantics, which is useful. However, it does not clarify the inclusive/exclusive bounds of fecha_ini/fecha_fin or the 365-day limit's effect per parameter, so compensation is only partial.

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 states a specific verb+resource: retrieving rates over a date range plus the TIIE-Cetes spread, which distinguishes it from get_tasa_hoy (single day) and get_divisas_rango (FX). It is terse and bilingual but the core purpose is identifiable. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate from other rate/curve siblings like get_curva_tiie.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative sibling is named. The 'max 365d' note is a constraint on input rather than guidance about choosing this tool over get_tasa_hoy or get_curva_tiie. Usage must be inferred from the name alone.

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