agrobr-mcp

preco_diario

Daily spot prices for Brazilian agricultural commodities (CEPEA/ESALQ).

Instructions

Daily spot prices for Brazilian agricultural commodities (CEPEA/ESALQ).

    Products: soja, milho, boi, bezerro, cafe, cafe_robusta, trigo, algodao.

    Args:
        produto: Commodity name (e.g. "soja", "milho", "boi")
        dias: Number of recent days to return (default: 5, max: 60)

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`dias`	No
`produto`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.2Feb 16, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the data source, the default (5) and the hard cap (60 days), but says nothing about units/currency, whether non-trading days are skipped, error behavior for an unlisted product, or any rate limits.

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-loaded with the resource and source, followed by a compact product list and a short Args block. Every line is informative; the docstring-style formatting is slightly verbose but not wasteful.

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

Completeness4/5

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 no explanation, and the description covers both parameters plus the valid product set. Minor gaps remain around units/currency and invalid-product behavior, but the essentials for a correct call are present.

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 does: it explains that 'produto' is a commodity name with examples and that 'dias' is the number of recent days with a default of 5 and max of 60. It adds real meaning beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't state case-sensitivity or what happens on invalid input.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific resource (daily spot prices for Brazilian agricultural commodities), names the data source (CEPEA/ESALQ), and enumerates the eight valid products. This distinguishes it from siblings like futuros_b3 (futures) and serie_historica_safra (historical series) without needing to open either schema.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by 'daily spot prices' and the product list, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus siblings such as futuros_b3 or serie_historica_safra, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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

Deploy Server