cotacao_soja

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden but only describes the return format and source. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, rate limits, or authentication requirements, though the output includes a cache_hit field hinting at caching behavior.

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 concise, front-loading the core purpose, then listing the return fields in a clear bullet format. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 tool is simple with no parameters, and the output schema details the return fields. The description covers source and reference, but lacks information on update frequency or data freshness, which would be relevant for a price indicator.

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?

No parameters exist, so the schema provides full coverage. The description adds value by detailing the return fields, which is helpful for understanding the output.

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 returns the CEPEA/ESALQ soybean indicator for the Port of Paranaguá, a specific and well-known benchmark. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cotacao_boi_gordo and cotacao_milho by specifying the commodity.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like indicador_esalq or other cotacao tools. While the commodity specificity implies usage, no when-not or exclusionary guidance is provided.

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