Historial de liquidez macro

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 and this is clearly a safe read. The description adds useful context by disclosing the historical span and sampling frequency of each series (weekly from 2002, monthly from 1959, etc.), which annotations cannot convey, but it says nothing about the return shape, pagination, or dataset size.

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 dense sentence, though it front-loads the core concept ('Series largas de liquidez') before enumerating datasets, which is the right order. It is long but every clause maps to a returned series, so there is little waste.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description rightly carries the informational burden, and it does so by listing all the datasets and their historical coverage. The main omission is that it never clarifies how the multiple series are packaged in the response, but the dataset inventory is thorough enough that an agent can 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 100%, so both parameters ('step' with its four-value enum and frequency semantics, and 'since' with its YYYY/YYYY-MM/YYYY-MM-DD pattern) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific resource, 'series largas de liquidez', and enumerates exactly which datasets are returned (Fed net liquidity, Fed balance, M2, stablecoins, crypto fear & greed, VIX, risk-on/off flow regime) with their start dates. It does not, however, differentiate itself from near siblings like get_liquidity_overview, get_fed_liquidity, or get_crypto_liquidity, leaving the agent to infer the distinction from dataset coverage alone.

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 explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings such as get_liquidity_overview, get_fed_liquidity, get_crypto_liquidity and get_flow_history, some phrasing like 'use this for long historical series; use overview for current snapshot' was needed but is absent.

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