Indicadores financieros IFRS de SA

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the data is 'calculated IFRS' and 'para un corte', implying date-bound derived metrics, but it does not explain potential quirks like the meaning of the default sociedades value or whether it returns all companies when unspecified. This is minimal additional context beyond the 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, compact sentence that front-loads the core resource and includes relevant specific categories (liquidez, endeudamiento, rentabilidad). It avoids unnecessary filler and is easy to scan. Slightly more detail could be added without harming conciseness, but as written it is 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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering read-only behavior, the description does not need to explain return formats or safety. However, it is incomplete in that it does not mention the 'sociedades' parameter at all, and it does not explicitly state that this tool is for IFRS (as opposed to NCh) beyond the name. This could lead to mis-selection among sibling tools.

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?

Only one of the two parameters (fecha_max) has a schema description, giving 50% coverage. The description does not compensate for the undocumented 'sociedades' parameter; it merely repeats the 'corte' concept from the schema description of fecha_max. The agent receives no guidance on how to use the sociedades array or what the default ['0'] signifies.

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 financial indicators (liquidity, leverage, profitability) calculated under IFRS for corporations (SA) at a specific cutoff date. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool cmf_indicadores_financieros_nch by explicitly mentioning 'IFRS' and 'SA'. Although it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'return', the intent is unambiguous.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cmf_indicadores_financieros_nch or cmf_eeff_ifrs_sa. There is no mention of any exclusions, prerequisites, or comparative context. The description is purely a statement of what the tool returns, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and sibling list.

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