tasa_p2p

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

With no annotations, the description does carry the provenance burden and does well on it: it discloses the data source (median of P2P ads) and its non-official reliability caveat. It says nothing about freshness/snapshot timing, caching, or failure behavior when there are too few ads, which matters for a rate tool.

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?

Two telegraphic sentences, front-loaded with the resource and computation, followed by the parameter values and the non-official caveat. Nothing is wasted, though the clipped style borders on underspecification.

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?

One optional parameter and no output schema or annotations, so the description is nearly sufficient, but it never indicates what is returned (a single rate value? a timestamp? ad counts?) or how stale the median may be — both relevant for a market-rate lookup.

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% and there is no enum, so the description must carry the parameter — it does explain lado='SELL' (venta) vs 'BUY' (compra). However, it does not resolve the key ambiguity of whether SELL means the rate obtained when selling USDT or the side of the ad book being read.

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 resource and computation: a USDT/VES market reference derived from the median of P2P listings. The closing 'No es oficial' implicitly contrasts it with the official-rate sibling (tasa_bcv), but the differentiation is only implied rather than naming the sibling.

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 tells the agent what the value represents and flags that it is non-official, which hints at when to prefer it over an official rate, but it never explicitly says when to use this versus tasa_bcv, convertir, or brecha_cambiaria.

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