ficha_imovelRetrieve municipal property record details—area, use, and assessed value when available—by city and lot registration, excluding owner information.
[Avançado: exige BITBUSCA_API_KEY] Mostra a ficha do imóvel no cadastro municipal (área, uso, valor venal quando houver), sem dados do proprietário.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| valor | Yes | Inscrição/código do lote (vem de buscar_imovel). | |
| cidade | Yes | Slug da cidade. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: an authentication/plan requirement (API key), the fact that valor venal is only present 'quando houver' (partial results), and an explicit privacy boundary excluding owner data.
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 sentence plus a bracketed prerequisite tag, with the access requirement front-loaded and the returned fields and exclusion clause packed in without waste. Nothing could be removed without losing information.
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?
For a two-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns and what it deliberately omits, plus the access gate. Minor gap: no mention of behavior when the property is not found in the municipal cadastro or how the two parameters interact (e.g., city slug must match a cidades_imovel entry).
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 are already documented, including the note that 'valor' comes from buscar_imovel. The description adds no syntax, format, or validation detail for cidade/valor beyond what the schema provides, which is the expected baseline-3 case.
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 verb and resource ('Mostra a ficha do imóvel no cadastro municipal') and enumerates the returned fields (área, uso, valor venal). It also delimits scope with 'sem dados do proprietário', though it never names the sibling buscar_imovel as the natural predecessor — that link only appears in the schema's parameter description.
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 bracketed 'Avançado: exige BITBUSCA_API_KEY' is a useful gating prerequisite, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to buscar_imovel or cidades_imovel. The workflow (search first, then fetch the ficha) is only implied by the schema, not stated here.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.