Detalhar Pix Copia e Cola

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

Annotations indicate read-only, open-world, and idempotent behavior. The description adds that it decodes, retrieves, and verifies (including 'when available'), and explicitly warns that the result does not authorize payment, providing valuable behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 a single sentence followed by a usage sentence, both front-loaded with critical information. Every word is meaningful and there is no redundancy.

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 description covers the main functionality (decoding, retrieval, verification) and includes an important caveat. An output schema exists, so return values are documented elsewhere. The tool is moderately complex, and the description provides adequate completeness.

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 description coverage is 100% and the schema already describes the parameter 'pixCopiaECola' in detail. The description repeats 'Pix Copia e Cola' but adds no new semantic meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states the tool decodes a Pix Copia e Cola, retrieves the dynamic charge, and verifies the JWS signature. It clearly identifies the specific resource and action, distinguishing it from other pix tools like pix_qr_code_pay.

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 advises using the tool for inspection and states that an invalid or unavailable result does not authorize payment, providing clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly list when not to use it, but the guideline is sufficient.

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