Taxonomías XBRL disponibles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the specific taxonomy codes and the source (CMF), which is useful context but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as return format or ordering. Given the annotation coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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, well-structured sentence in Spanish. It leads with the action ('Lista'), specifies the resource, and includes the relevant taxonomy codes. There is no wasted text or repetition of the title.

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?

For a parameterless listing tool with annotations and an output schema, the description is complete enough. It identifies exactly what is listed (the six taxonomy codes) and their source. The output schema presumably covers return structure, so no additional detail is needed. A small gap is that it does not mention whether the list is exhaustive or if there are any limitations, but this is minor.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is empty and requires no explanation. The description does not need to add parameter semantics. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4.

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 a specific action ('Lista') and a concrete resource (taxonomías XBRL del Mercado de Valores publicadas por la CMF), and it enumerates the exact taxonomy codes (CL-CI, CL-CC, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling XBRL tools like cmf_xbrl_visor and cmf_xbrl_consulta, which are for viewing or consulting specific reports.

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 does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, but it provides clear context: it is for listing available XBRL taxonomies. There is no exclusion or alternative mentioned, which is acceptable for a simple listing tool, but slightly more guidance would be beneficial.

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