Valor de indicador (UF, dólar, UTM, IPC, TMC…)

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the data comes from the official CMF v3 API and lists the indicators, but it discloses no behavioral details such as response behavior for missing parameters, rate limits, or authorization requirements. The term 'período' is ambiguous.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word contributes value, and there is no superfluous content.

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?

While an output schema exists (so return format is presumably handled) and annotations cover safety, the description is incomplete for a 4-parameter tool with 0% schema description coverage. It leaves unclear how 'período' maps to the date parameters and whether all or some combinations are valid. No cross-reference to the series tool is made.

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%. The description does not explain the parameters (dia, mes, anio, serie). It lists indicator names that are already in the schema's enum, and 'fecha o período' only vaguely implies the date parameters. No guidance on parameter combinations or meaning is provided.

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 value of official economic indicators (UF, dollar, UTM, IPC, etc.) for a specific date or period. It lists the supported indicators, making the resource scope clear. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling `cmf_api_indicador_serie`, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description doesn't specify when to use this tool versus `cmf_api_indicador_serie` or any other alternative, nor does it explain the meaning of 'period' or how to structure date parameters. There is no indication of whether a full date is required or if partial dates (e.g., year only) are allowed.

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