indice

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses no auth key required, the computed metrics (return, maximum drawdown, moving-average crossover), the default lookback (last 5 years), and an important semantic caveat that this is a PRICE index in points excluding dividends. Rate limits and error behavior are not covered, keeping it from 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?

Front-loads the purpose ('O benchmark: desempenho de um ÍNDICE da B3') before the supporting detail, and every clause contributes (metric set, auth, listing behavior, dividend caveat). It is dense and slightly cryptic but not padded.

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?

For a 5-parameter, no-output-schema, no-annotation tool, the description covers purpose, scope, auth, defaults, listing behavior, and a key return caveat, which is substantial. It falls short only on parameter formats, which is a real but contained gap.

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 coverage is 0% with 5 undocumented parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains `codigo` (examples and empty-string listing behavior) and implies `de`/`ate` via 'num período' and `media_curta`/`media_longa` via 'cruzamento de médias', but supplies no date format or units, leaving syntactic gaps.

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 and resource: computing B3 index performance ('desempenho de um ÍNDICE da B3'). Names concrete index codes (IBOV, IFIX, SMLL, IDIV, IBXX) and explicitly distinguishes the scope from the sibling 'desempenho' by framing it as the index equivalent, so an agent can separate the two without opening a 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?

Gives clear context for when this applies (index performance over a period, same metric set as `desempenho`) and the operational precondition ('Aberto, sem chave'), plus the discovery path `codigo=""` to list indices and coverage. It does not state explicit when-not conditions or point away from `indice_precos`, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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