Serie histórica de indicador

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral context about date range support and variants (previous/posterior to a date), which goes beyond the schema. However, it does not mention output format or pagination, but the existing output schema mitigates the need.

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, front-loaded sentence that clearly states the purpose and enumerates indicators without unnecessary words. Every phrase earns its place and is easy to parse.

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 is adequate for a simple read-only retrieval tool with output schema and annotations, but the 'variantes anteriores/posteriores a una fecha' phrase is ambiguous and could confuse an agent. It also lacks explicit guidance on which parameters are required or how this tool relates to cmf_api_indicador_valor.

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% and the description partially compensates by clarifying that 'serie' refers to the indicator and from/to parameters are years/months. It does not explain exact parameter formats (beyond the schema pattern) or the vague 'variantes anteriores/posteriores' concept. The enum list is already in the schema, so the description adds limited new meaning.

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 it provides the historical series of an indicator and enumerates the supported indicators (UF, dólar, euro, etc.). It also specifies the scope (range of years/months) and mentions variants, which distinguishes it from the sibling tool cmf_api_indicador_valor that likely provides current values.

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 implies use for historical indicator data versus a current-value tool, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives or mention any exclusions. The context signals and sibling names suggest a distinction, but no direct guidance is given.

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