brecha_cambiaria

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about sign convention, units, data freshness, or whether a failure in either underlying source degrades the result. For a computed/derived endpoint with zero annotation coverage this is a meaningful gap.

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 single well-formed sentence with no filler, and the defining concept (percentage difference between the two named rates) is front-loaded. Nothing is wasted.

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, no annotations, and no parameters, the description is the only documentation and it omits the return shape (a bare percentage, a signed number, an object with both rates). It identifies the metric but does not fully equip an agent to interpret the response.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The description correctly implies the call needs no arguments.

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?

Names a specific derived metric (percentage gap between the official BCV dollar rate and the USDT P2P reference), which is clear enough that an agent can tell it apart from tasa_bcv and tasa_p2p, which supply the individual rates. It does not explicitly state the relationship to those siblings, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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 is purely definitional: it says what the metric is, never when to call it instead of tasa_bcv, tasa_p2p, or convertir. There is no explicit or even clearly implied routing guidance, leaving the agent to infer that this is the comparison tool.

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