Ficha de institución financiera

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the 'API oficial v3' context and the fields returned, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as data availability, error handling, or parameter dependencies. With annotations present, this is adequate but not rich.

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 with no filler, front-loading the resource and scope. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's 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 presence of an output schema and annotations covers return values and safety, reducing the burden on the description. However, the description is sparse: it does not explain the optional month/year parameters or explicitly differentiate from the many sibling institution tools. This leaves a moderate gap in context.

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 0%, and the description does not compensate. It fails to explain whether 'mes' and 'anio' are required for a ficha (which seems static) or the expected format of 'institucion'. Agents receive no guidance on parameter meaning beyond the raw names.

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 identifies the tool as providing a 'ficha' (record) for a bank/financial institution and lists specific fields (address, subsidiaries, executives), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like balance or resultados. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'get' or 'returns', making it a noun phrase rather than a direct command.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The listed contents (domicilio, filiales, ejecutivos) imply it is for basic institution data, but no exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned. This is implied rather than stated.

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