EEFF IFRS de intermediarios (AV/CB/CBP)

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already state (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). It does not disclose any limitations, required input formats, or other operational traits. For a read-only tool, the annotations cover safety, but the description fails to add additional useful behavioral information.

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 communicates the tool's purpose without redundancy. It effectively expands the title abbreviations and names the target entities, earning its place with no wasted words.

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 tool has five parameters and a complex domain (financial regulatory data), but the description is minimal. While an output schema exists, the description does not clarify the meaning of parameters or the intended use case, making it incomplete for an agent to confidently select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 provides no explanation of the five parameters (mes1, mes2, anio1, anio2, sociedades). The agent must rely solely on parameter names, which are ambiguous (e.g., 'sociedades' could mean companies or entities). This is a critical gap for effective invocation.

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 IFRS financial statements for specific types of intermediaries (stock brokers, exchange brokers, and commodity exchange brokers). This distinguishes it from related tools like cmf_eeff_ifrs_sa (for S.A. companies) and cmf_intermediarios_indicadores_ifrs (indicators), though it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'list'.

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. The description does not mention any specific use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for selection among many related financial tools.

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