Lists supported price databases and shows which are already downloaded locally, filtered by state, regime, and reference period.
Lista as bases de preços suportadas e o que já está baixado no banco local (UF, regime, competência).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the response combines two things (supported bases and already-downloaded state), which is behavioral context beyond the name, but it never states that the call is read-only, local, side-effect free, or whether it hits the network.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the output dimensions (UF, regime, competência) are parenthesized at the end where they belong. Every word earns its place.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the description still names the key fields the result exposes. For a zero-argument listing tool this is nearly sufficient; only the read-only/local nature and its role relative to atualizar_base are left unstated.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Schema coverage is reported at 100% but the object is empty.
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?
States a specific verb ("Lista") and two concrete resources: the supported price bases and what is already downloaded in the local database, further scoped to UF, regime and competência. It does not name a sibling explicitly, but the read/list framing distinguishes it cleanly from atualizar_base (write) and buscar_precos (lookup).
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 this is the preflight/discovery call before atualizar_base or buscar_precos, but the description never states when to use it instead of those siblings, nor any prerequisites. No exclusions or alternatives are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.