get_udis_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Current and historical UDIS values' but lacks details on behavioral traits such as data freshness, rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation. This is a significant gap for a data-fetching tool with no annotation coverage.

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 and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose, followed by clear 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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's low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, parameter semantics, and return scope, though it lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines, which are minor gaps in this context.

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?

The description adds meaningful semantics for the 'limit' parameter, explaining it as 'Maximum number of recent data points (default: 30)', which clarifies its purpose beyond the schema's basic type and default. With 0% schema description coverage and 1 parameter, this compensates well, though it doesn't detail data recency or ordering.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('UDIS (Investment Units) data from Banxico'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from some siblings by focusing on UDIS data rather than reserves, exchange rates, or other economic indicators, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all similar data-fetching tools like 'get_date_range_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 siblings like 'get_date_range_data' and 'get_historical_data' tools, it's unclear if this tool is for UDIS-specific data, if it has date range limitations, or if other tools might overlap. No explicit when/when-not or alternative usage is mentioned.

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