ibge-br-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists indicator types and examples but doesn't mention critical behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or whether this is a read-only operation (though implied by 'queries'). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 5 parameters.

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 well-structured with categorized lists and examples, making it easy to scan. However, it could be more front-loaded—the core purpose is stated first, but the detailed lists might overwhelm. Every sentence earns its place by providing useful information.

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?

Given 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers indicator types and examples but lacks details on return values, error cases, or operational constraints. For a data query tool with this complexity, it should provide more contextual information to be fully adequate.

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 documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds value by categorizing indicators (e.g., 'Interest Rate Indicators') and providing usage examples, but doesn't add significant semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'queries Central Bank of Brazil (BCB) data,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ibge_indicadores' or other data query tools on the server, which would require a 5.

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 provides implied usage through examples (e.g., 'SELIC last 12 months'), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like the IBGE tools for Brazilian data. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is included.

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