Retrieves the base price in Nicaraguan córdobas (NIO) for a given product name, so assistants can answer product pricing questions. USD pricing is handled separately.
Precio base (NIO) de un producto, en voseo. El precio en USD vive en T6 (precio_dolares).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| producto | Yes | Nombre del producto (mínimo 2 letras) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and does very little with it. It does not say whether the lookup is read-only, what happens when the product is not found, whether multiple matches return multiple prices, or what the response shape looks like.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the currency-bearing fact that matters most. The aside about voseo is a register note of marginal relevance to invocation, but it costs little.
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 simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers the essentials of what is returned and in which currency. It stops short of describing the return format or failure behavior, which an agent would still need to guess.
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?
There is a single required parameter and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage (product name, minimum 2 letters). The description adds no matching rules, case sensitivity, or ambiguity handling beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 concrete resource and unit: the base price in NIO of a product, which is clearly distinguishable from a USD price lookup. It does not name any sibling tool, so the agent must still infer whether buscar_producto or precio_producto is the right call.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it should call this when it needs a base price in córdobas. The note that the USD price lives in T6 (precio_dolares) hints at where the alternative lives, but it points at a table rather than at a sibling tool, leaving the routing decision partially unresolved.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.