Caja y acreditaciones

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

Annotations alreadly declare it as read-only and non-destructive, and the description goes beyond them by explaining what each mode means: dia includes released and about-to-enter money, rango covers last 14 days, and proyeccion describes uncredited income day by day. This adds useful behavioral context without contradicting annotations.

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?

Two dense sentences carry all key information: the first defines the three modes and the second gives when-to-use guidance. There is no filler, and the intended usage is front-loaded enough; it could be slightly clearer with an explicit action verb.

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 low complexity, full schema coverage, and read-only annotations, the description supplies enough calling context: mode meanings, optional date behavior, and common user intents. The return format/amount structure is not described, but there is no output schema and the agent's selection/invocation task is well supported.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds real semantic value beyond the schema by expanding 'modo' with user-facing meanings (available money, when paid, weekly inflow) that help the agent choose between dia/rango/proyeccion. It contributes little for fecha/cuenta, but those are adequately described in the schema.

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 identifies the tool as a MercadoLibre money/caja lookup with three explicit modes (dia, rango, proyeccion) and concrete use cases. It lacks a direct verb like 'consulta' or 'muestra' and does not name a sibling, but the mode breakdown and title 'Caja y acreditaciones' make its purpose distinct from metrics/order/publication siblings.

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 last sentence gives explicit triggers: 'Usar cuando preguntan por plata disponible, cuándo cobran o cuánto entra esta semana.' This tells an agent when to select the tool, though it does not state when not to use it or name alternative tools for other money/order questions.

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