consultar_cotacao

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 discloses that the tool uses an external API (AwesomeAPI), implying network dependency, and gives a usage hint about the code format. However, it does not mention potential error cases (e.g., invalid codes), rate limits, or the structure of the returned data, which are important for a basic query tool.

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 a single, focused sentence followed by a short usage hint. It is concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every word adds value. No fluff or repetition.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no nested objects), but with no output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns (e.g., the exchange rate value and currencies involved). The description only says 'consulta a cotação' without specifying the response format, leaving a gap in user expectations. Beyond that, the tool's behavior is reasonably clear given its simplicity.

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 input schema only has a parameter 'moeda' with type string and no description, leaving 0% schema coverage. The description compensates by explaining that the parameter is a 3-letter currency code and provides examples (USD, EUR, BTC, ARS). This adds critical semantic meaning that the schema lacks, though it does not enumerate all supported currencies or case sensitivity.

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 function: querying exchange rates of a currency against BRL, USD, and EUR using the AwesomeAPI. It specifies the resource (currency quotes) and the verb (consulta), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like validar_cpf and gerar_cpf, which serve completely different purposes.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (when a currency exchange rate is needed) and includes an example of the input format (3-letter code). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but since the sibling tools are unrelated, the guidance is sufficient.

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