Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• obter_indicadoresA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns the same indicators as analisar_empresa but with free period and consolidation choice. However, it does not mention any behavioral traits like performance implications, data freshness, or error handling, which are important for a computation tool.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description consists of two concise sentences that front-load the core purpose and usage context. No redundant or extra information is present; every word contributes meaning.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the returned indicators, parameter details (especially nome_ou_cnpj and consolidado), or error conditions. A user would need additional context to use the tool effectively.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The input schema has zero parameter descriptions (0% coverage). The description only partially explains ano_inicio, ano_fim, and consolidado via the phrase 'intervalo de anos' and 'versão consolidado/individual'. It does not clarify consolidado's meaning or the nome_ou_cnpj parameter at all. This is insufficient compensation for the missing schema descriptions.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states that the tool computes financial indicators for a user-chosen year range, and distinguishes it from sibling analisar_empresa by emphasizing flexibility in period and consolidation version. It uses a specific verb ('calculados') and resource ('indicadores financeiros'), making the purpose unambiguous.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description explicitly advises to use this tool for custom requests that deviate from the standard 5-year period, implying that analisar_empresa should be used otherwise. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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

• buscar_empresaA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  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 discloses that the tool searches the CVM registry and that results may include companies with cancelled/suspended status, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not mention any side effects, authentication needs, or return format.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and uses line breaks for readability. Every sentence adds value with no fluff.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a simple search tool with 2 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, usage guidance, and the main parameter. However, it omits explanation of the 'limite' parameter and return values, leaving minor gaps.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'consulta' can be a name, CNPJ, or CVM code, adding meaning. However, it fails to describe 'limite' (limit), which defaults to 10. Partial compensation leads to a score of 3.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the verb (busca = searches), resource (companies in CVM registry), and search criteria (name, CNPJ, or CVM code). It distinguishes from sibling tools like analisar_empresa or obter_indicadores, which are for analysis and data retrieval, not searching.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Explicitly says to use this tool before any other to confirm the correct company, warning about similar names and cancelled/suspended registrations. This provides clear when-to-use and context-specific guidance.

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

• obter_demonstrativo_brutoA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses that the tool returns raw data 'sem nenhum cálculo' (without any calculation), indicating it is a read-only operation. However, it does not mention potential side effects or response size considerations, but the core behavior is clear.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is two sentences plus a list, front-loaded with the action ('Devolve as contas contábeis brutas...'). Every sentence adds value, and the structure is efficient.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and 3 siblings, the description covers the core functionality, usage context, and return structure (code, description, value). It lacks details on error handling or missing data behavior, but overall it is sufficiently complete for its complexity.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The input schema has 4 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description only adds meaning for the 'demonstrativo' parameter by listing valid values (BPA, BPP, DRE, etc.). Other parameters (nome_ou_cnpj, ano, consolidado) are not explained in the description, leaving their purpose inferred from context. This partially compensates for the schema gap but is insufficient for full clarity.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool returns raw accounting accounts (code, description, value in BRL millions) from a CVM financial statement, without calculations. It lists specific statement types (BPA, BPP, DRE, etc.) and distinguishes itself from sibling 'obter_indicadores' by noting it provides raw detail when indicators are insufficient.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use when the user asks for something that the ready indicators don't cover, like a specific accounting account or greater level of detail.' This provides clear guidance and implies alternatives.

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

• analisar_empresaA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  No annotations provided, but the description discloses key behavioral traits: EBITDA is an estimate, data comes from CVM public filings, no market cap data, and warnings are issued when items cannot be calculated. This fully informs the agent about limitations.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is well-structured and front-loaded: first sentence states purpose, second guides usage, third lists returns, fourth adds caveats. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema), the description is complete. It covers what is returned, constraints (5 years), limitations (EBITDA estimate, no market data), and provides usage guidance with alternatives.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate. The parameter 'nome_ou_cnpj' is self-explanatory, but the description does not elaborate on format or provide examples. It gives context that it's a company identifier, which is adequate but not exceptional.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool provides a standard financial analysis of the last 5 years of a company, with a specific list of metrics. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it is for generic requests, while alternatives handle custom periods or raw data.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Explicitly says 'use when user asks something generic like 'analyze company X' without specifying period or indicators.' It also tells when NOT to use (customized requests) and names alternative tools (obter_indicadores, obter_demonstrativo_bruto).

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