get_series_metadata

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 is a 'Get' operation but doesn't mention whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns errors for invalid series IDs, or has any side effects. The return format is mentioned but without details about structure or potential null values.

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 appropriately sized with clear sections (Args, Returns). The first sentence states the core purpose, followed by parameter and return details. No wasted words, though the structure could be more integrated rather than sectioned.

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 simple single-parameter tool with output schema, the description covers the basics but has gaps. It explains what the tool does and the parameter, but doesn't address authentication needs, error conditions, or how this metadata tool relates to the sibling data retrieval tools. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to detail return values.

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 provides crucial context about the series_id parameter - explaining it's 'The series ID to get metadata for' and providing a specific default example ('SF63528 for USD/MXN'). This adds meaningful semantics beyond what the bare schema provides, though it doesn't explain what constitutes a valid series ID format.

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 action ('Get metadata') and resource ('for a Banxico series'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this metadata retrieval tool from sibling data retrieval tools like 'get_banxico_reserves_data' or 'get_usd_mxn_historical_data'.

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. With multiple sibling tools for Banxico data, there's no indication whether this should be used before/after other tools, or how it complements them. The default parameter hint is useful but doesn't constitute usage guidance.

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