O mesmo de desempenho, para um ETF (só preço, sem ajuste de desdobramento: salto diário acima de 35% vem em saltos_suspeitos). Aberto, sem chave.
O mesmo de desempenho, para um ETF (só preço, sem ajuste de desdobramento:
salto diário acima de 35% vem em saltos_suspeitos). Aberto, sem chave.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| de | No | ||
| ate | No | ||
| ticker | Yes | ||
| media_curta | No | ||
| media_longa | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.9.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does so reasonably: it discloses the auth status ("Aberto, sem chave"), the data treatment (price only, no split adjustment), and how anomalous jumps are reported ("saltos_suspeitos"). It omits read-only/return-format detail, but the key behavioral traits are surfaced.
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 tight two-clause parenthetical with no filler; the ETF scope and the anomaly note are front-loaded. Slightly dense but every clause carries 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?
No annotations and no output schema, yet the definition delegates behavior and parameters to a sibling ("O mesmo de `desempenho`") rather than being self-contained. It notes one output field, but five undocumented parameters leave the definition materially incomplete for direct invocation.
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?
Five parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description explains none of them (de, ate, ticker, media_curta, media_longa). The only compensation is the implied "same as desempenho" parameter set, which the agent cannot verify from this definition itself.
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 identifies the resource as an ETF performance tool and explicitly distinguishes it from its sibling `desempenho` ("O mesmo de `desempenho`, para um ETF"). The action is defined by reference to that sibling rather than stated outright, but since both tools are co-present the agent can route correctly. It also narrows scope with "só preço, sem ajuste de desdobramento".
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?
Use with ETFs (as opposed to `desempenho` for equities) is implied through the sibling contrast, and it hints where anomalies surface ("salto diário acima de 35% vem em `saltos_suspeitos`"). There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or an outright list of alternatives, so guidance remains inferential.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.