Comercio exterior de bienes (exportaciones / importaciones)

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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent read, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: an INDEC_API_TOKEN is required, confidential rows marked 's' are excluded from sums and reported, and agrupar_por changes the return shape from raw rows to named totals. Those are exactly the operational facts an agent could not infer from the structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and units (USD, kg) before the filtering, aggregation, date-default and auth clauses; no filler sentences. It is a single dense block, so the auth requirement and the confidential-data caveat are easy to skim past, costing it the top mark.

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 13-parameter read tool with no output schema, it covers the essentials: units, defaults, aggregation semantics, auth, and the confidentiality quirk. Pagination mechanics (siguiente_offset) and the exact response envelope are not described, though the offset parameter hints at them.

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 coverage is 92%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by stating the cross-parameter constraint the schema cannot express — rubro/subrubro apply only to exports, gce/uso_economico only to imports — and by explaining what agrupar_por actually computes (suma de valor y peso, excluding confidential rows). Date formats and pagination are left to the schema, which already documents them.

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 names the specific resource (exports FOB / imports CIF, monthly since 1986) and the dimensions each flow supports (rubros/subrubros vs. usos económicos/gran categoría), so an agent knows exactly what dataset it gets. It is clearly distinguishable from the topical sibling tools (indec_ipc, inde_emae, inde_salarios).

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?

It states when the tool applies (exports vs. imports), how to filter by name against the dictionary, that agrupar_por yields aggregated totals instead of raw rows, and that missing desde/hasta default to the last month. What it does not do is route the agent away from overlapping generic siblings (indec_query_dataset, inde_aggregate) when a hand-rolled query would be preferred.

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