ratios_liquidez

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that the tool computes liquidity ratios, which is consistent. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., what is destroyed, auth needed) are disclosed, but annotations cover the safety profile adequately.

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 sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the ratio category and lists the specific ratios, with no unnecessary 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 description lacks information about the return format or output structure. For a computation tool with 4 inputs and 4 ratios, the agent might need to know what the tool returns (likely a JSON object with the ratios). No output schema exists, so the description should compensate.

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 100%, so the schema already explains each parameter. The description lists the ratios but does not clarify how they map to parameters (e.g., inventory used for quick ratio). It adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema.

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 the tool computes liquidity ratios (current, quick, cash, working capital). The verb 'Ratios de liquidez' implies calculation, and listing specific ratio types distinguishes it from sibling tools like ratios_rentabilidad and ratios_endeudamiento.

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 implies usage for liquidity analysis but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. No exclusion criteria or alternative tool references are given.

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