agrobr-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this retrieves 'daily settlement prices' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't address permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens with invalid dates/contracts. The description is minimal and lacks important behavioral context.

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?

The description is efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement, list of valid contracts, and parameter explanations. Every sentence serves a purpose with zero waste. The information is front-loaded with the most important details first.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (which handles return values), 2 parameters with good description coverage, and relatively simple functionality, the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the basics but lacks context about when to use it, behavioral constraints, or relationship to sibling tools.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining both parameters. It provides the meaning of 'contrato' (futures contract name) with specific examples, and explains 'data' as date in YYYY-MM-DD format with default behavior. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: retrieving daily settlement prices for agricultural futures on the B3 exchange. It specifies the resource (settlement prices) and scope (agricultural futures, B3 exchange), but doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'preco_diario' which might have overlapping functionality.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'preco_diario' or explain what makes this tool specific to futures settlement prices versus other daily price tools. No usage context or exclusions are provided.

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