Search Chilean Tribunal de Defensa de la Libre Competencia rulings, resolutions, and general instructions by subject or company to support antitrust research and casework.
Busca sentencias, resoluciones e instrucciones de carácter general del Tribunal de Defensa de la Libre Competencia (TDLC).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Materia o empresa contenciosa (ej. 'colusion farmacias', 'abuso posicion dominante') |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It names the document types retrieved (sentencias, resoluciones, instrucciones) which implies a read-only search, but says nothing about result format, pagination, ranking, or coverage limits. Adequate but incomplete for a tool with no annotation support.
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?
Single efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and scopes the resource. No wasted words. It is arguably too terse given no other guidance, but conciseness itself is good.
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 one-parameter search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides the essential domain scope but omits return-format expectations (e.g., whether full text, snippet, or citation list is returned) and any usage context relative to sibling jurisprudence search tools.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% — the single 'query' parameter is fully documented with type and examples ('colusion farmacias', 'abuso posicion dominante'). Description adds no meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline 3 case when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
States a specific verb (Busca) and resource (sentencias, resoluciones e instrucciones generales) scoped to the TDLC. Clear what it retrieves, though it does not differentiate from siblings like 'tdlc_buscar_icg_y_dictamenes' or 'ambiental_buscar_jurisprudencia', which an agent must infer from domain names.
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?
No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is provided. The agent must infer that this is the TDLC-specific jurisprudence search versus tribunal-general searches (pjud_search_jurisprudencia, cgr_search_jurisprudencia, ambiental_buscar_jurisprudencia) with no explicit routing hint.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.