bdr_precos

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful traits: source (COTAHIST da B3), unadjusted data ('sem ajuste'), and a behavioral limitation—no key yields only a 30-session sample with an `aviso` field. It omits rate limits or error behavior, hence not a 5.

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?

One dense paragraph, front-loaded with the resource and fields before the key/date mechanics. Every clause adds information, though the sample/key explanation could be tightened.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates by naming the returned fields and the sample-vs-full behavior. It is complete enough to call correctly, with only minor gaps around ticker format and error handling.

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 and it largely does: it specifies the AAAA-MM-DD format for `de`/`ate` and explains that `chave_api` is a free key that unlocks the full series. The `ticker` parameter is only implied by context rather than explicitly defined.

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 resource and granularity—'Série DIÁRIA de um BDR'—and enumerates the fields returned (fechamento, abertura, máxima, mínima, volume, negócios). The BDR-specific framing implicitly separates it from the sibling 'precos' without needing the schema.

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 explains the key-vs-no-key behavior (sample of 30 sessions vs full series), which is useful context, but gives no explicit routing telling the agent when to prefer this over siblings like 'precos', 'bdr', or 'indice_precos'. Usage is implied by the BDR resource name only.

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