EEFF IFRS de Fondos de Inversión

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations by detailing that the result is a Google Visualization grid converted to JSON and structured as a matrix of accounts × funds. This clarifies the return format, though it does not discuss limits or permissions beyond what annotations imply.

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, tightly written sentence with a colon introducing the key detail. Every element earns its place: the resource, the structure, and the format conversion. No filler or repetition exists, making it highly efficient.

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 provides the core purpose and output structure, which is adequate for a simple read-only tool with an output schema. However, it omits essential context about the date parameters, defaults, and when to use the tool, leaving gaps that might require the agent to infer from schema or sibling names. For a 6-parameter tool, more guidance would be expected.

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 only 33%, with mes1, mes2, anio1, anio2 lacking descriptions. The tool description does not compensate for this gap; it never explains that these are start/end months and years or how they relate to the date range. The parameter names are suggestive but provide no explicit semantics, and the description adds no parameter-related value.

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 resource as IFRS financial statements of investment funds and specifies the structure as an accounts × funds matrix. It distinguishes from sibling tools by naming 'fondos de inversión' and the grid format, but it lacks an explicit action verb like 'retrieve' or 'list', making the purpose slightly implicit.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when considering cmf_fondos_mutuos_* tools or cmf_eeff_ifrs_sa. No context is given about typical use cases, exclusions, or complementary tools. The only implied usage is from the name and resource type.

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