scores

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns detailed criteria (not just a score), that the API key is dispensable for WEGE3 but necessary for others, and that an empty string uses an environment variable. This is good behavioral context, though it doesn't mention potential errors or rate limits.

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 well-structured with a clear intro, a bolded statement of the output, and a parameter list. It's a bit long but every sentence adds value. The front-loading of the purpose and the explicit 'you see the account, not just the score' is effective.

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 tool with 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what it returns, how to format parameters, and the API key handling. It could mention error cases or the exact structure of the output, but it's largely complete 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. It does: it explains the ticker format (uppercase, with class digit, examples) and the chave_api parameter (optional, default behavior, environment variable fallback). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare property names.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: it returns quality and value scores for a B3 company, criterion by criterion, including the Piotroski F-Score with each of the nine criteria detailed and the Graham criterion. It explicitly says the goal is to allow disagreement with the score by showing the underlying calculations, which distinguishes it from a simple score 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?

The description explains when to use the tool (to see detailed scores and criteria for a B3 company) and provides clear parameter guidance, including examples and a reference to `listar_empresas` for finding tickers. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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