Analyze COP financial and contractual concentration for SECOP II processes or contracts to identify budget patterns and supplier concentration.
Ejecuta un análisis financiero y de concentración contractual en COP sobre procesos o contratos de SECOP II.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| dataset | No | procesos | |
| keyword | No | ||
| modalidad | No | ||
| departamento | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral-disclosure burden. It mentions COP and SECOP II scope, but does not state whether the tool is read-only, what permissions or data freshness constraints apply, or how the analysis is computed.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, so it is efficiently concise. Its brevity reflects under-specification for a five-parameter analysis tool rather than wasteful wording.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained in the description. However, for a no-annotation analysis tool with five parameters and zero schema coverage, the description omits usage guidance and parameter semantics that an agent would need to invoke it 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% for five parameters. The description only indirectly maps to the dataset parameter by mentioning 'procesos o contratos'; it does not explain limit, keyword, modalidad, or departamento, so it fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.
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 states a specific verb and resource: it executes a financial and contractual-concentration analysis in COP over SECOP II processes or contracts. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as secop_search_processes or secop_inspect_opportunity.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling search or inspection tools. It implies that it performs analysis on processes or contracts, but offers no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative-selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.