Consultar IPCA (Inflação)

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that, most notably the crucial caveat about 'ultimos_meses' for accumulated types returning only the N most recent periods, plus a description of the return series. This enhances transparency without contradicting annotations.

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 highly concise and well-structured: a clear opening sentence, a compact bullet list, and an important note. Every sentence earns its place, and the critical caveat is highlighted with 'IMPORTANTE', making it scannable and efficient.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no nested objects), the description is largely complete. It doesn't have an output schema, so it explains the return as a historical series with monthly percentage variation, which is adequate. Some detail about the exact response format is missing, but for a straightforward query tool this is sufficient.

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 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds meaning by explaining the semantics of 'tipo' with examples and clarifying the non-obvious behavior of 'ultimos_meses' for accumulated types. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions and provides essential usage nuance.

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 'Consulta o IPCA' with a specific verb and resource, identifying it as the tool for Brazil's main inflation indicator. It stands apart from sibling IBGE tools that cover regions, population, or other economic indicators, making its purpose unmistakable.

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?

While no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance is given, the description provides clear context: this tool is for querying IPCA inflation data. The parameter explanations and the important note about accumulated types further clarify how to use it, but it doesn't explicitly compare with other tools.

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