Panorama global de liquidez

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds that the payload is a multi-domain composite including a Spanish-language narrative, which is useful output-shape context, but says nothing about freshness, caching, or aggregation lag.

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 front-loaded sentence opens with 'Resumen completo' and then enumerates contents efficiently with no filler. The list is dense but each item earns its place by telling the agent what data domains are covered.

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, the description must convey the return shape, and it does so by listing the covered domains plus the narrative summary. What is missing is a note on how this aggregator relates to the granular sibling tools and any indication of data currency.

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 schema imposes no semantic burden and the baseline of 4 applies. There is nothing for the description to clarify or compensate for here.

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 names the resource precisely and enumerates its components (market regime, inflows/outflows, Fed liquidity, stablecoins, crypto, narrative summary), so an agent knows exactly what the call returns. It does not, however, differentiate this composite overview from focused siblings such as get_fed_liquidity or get_crypto_liquidity.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no indication that this is the broad 'start here' aggregator versus the narrower sibling tools, and no exclusions. The reasoning is left entirely to inference from the content list.

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