agrobr-mcp

futuros_b3

Daily settlement prices for agricultural futures on B3 exchange.

Instructions

Daily settlement prices for agricultural futures on B3 exchange.

    Contracts: boi, milho, cafe_arabica, cafe_conillon, etanol, soja_cross, soja_fob.

    Args:
        contrato: Futures contract name (e.g. "milho", "boi")
        data: Date in "YYYY-MM-DD" format (default: latest published session)

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	No
`contrato`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.2Feb 16, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the default behavior (latest published session), the exact contract list, and the date format, but says nothing about permissions, whether the date must be a valid trading session, or error behavior for invalid contracts.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads the purpose in the first line, then the contract list, then parameter semantics. Compact and well-structured, with only minor redundancy from the docstring-style Args block.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the parameters are covered. However, for a two-parameter tool with no annotations, the definition omits usage context relative to sibling price tools and validation/edge-case behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it names both parameters, gives example contract values, enumerates the seven valid contracts, and specifies the YYYY-MM-DD format and default for data.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource: daily settlement prices for agricultural futures on the B3 exchange, plus the exact contract universe. An agent can identify what it retrieves, though it does not differentiate itself from sibling price tools like preco_diario or serie_historica_safra.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use guidance and no exclusions. Given siblings such as preco_diario and serie_historica_safra, the agent is left to infer which price endpoint applies; the description only notes the default date behavior.

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

Deploy Server