comparar_seriesCompare two central-bank time series over matching periods and calculate their correlation to assess co-movement without implying causality.
Compara dos series por periodos coincidentes y calcula su correlación, sin inferir causalidad.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| desde | Yes | ||
| hasta | Yes | ||
| codigo_a | Yes | ||
| codigo_b | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, open-world operation, so the description does not need to repeat safety details. It adds useful context by stating that only coincident periods are used and that correlation does not imply causality, but it does not disclose error behavior or handling of non-overlapping ranges.
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. Every clause contributes either the core operation, the period constraint, or the no-causality caveat.
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 tool takes four required parameters, has no schema descriptions, and performs a comparison whose correctness depends on overlapping date ranges and valid series codes. The description names the core operation and caveat, but it leaves parameter formats and edge-case behavior unspecified, which is a significant gap for an agent to call 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%, so the description must compensate for four undocumented required parameters. It conveys the high-level meaning of two series and a period, but never specifies what 'codigo_a'/'codigo_b' look like or what date format 'desde'/'hasta' require.
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 operation: it compares two series over coincident periods and calculates their correlation. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the single-series sibling 'serie' by requiring two series, but it does not explicitly name or route against 'buscar_series' or 'resumen'.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools, nor any when-not conditions. The phrase 'por periodos coincidentes' implies a constraint, but the description does not say what to do if periods do not overlap or when 'serie' would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.