get_cotacao

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly indicates a read-like operation ('Retorna') and adds that the data source is curated by deunobicho.online. However, it does not disclose update frequency, whether the data is cached, or any limitations on freshness, which would be useful for a current-quotes 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 that front-loads the core operation and resource, then adds a brief list of examples and the source. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

For a no-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it names the resource, the modalities covered, and the data source. It falls slightly short by not describing the return structure or the format/units of the quotations, which an agent would need to interpret the result.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter ambiguity. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation is needed; the description adds nothing about parameters, but nothing is missing either.

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 states a specific verb ('Retorna') and a specific resource ('cotações atuais das modalidades do jogo do bicho'), and enumerates the modalities included (grupo, dezena, centena, milhar, milhar-centena). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on results, groups, dreams, and calendar 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 context is clear — this tool returns current betting odds, so an agent can infer when to use it. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusion criteria or sibling tools for comparison.

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