bcb_serie

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions defaults for data_inicial and data_final, which is useful, but doesn't state that the operation is read-only, any rate limits, or side effects. It partially fills the gap but leaves significant behavioral traits unstated.

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 concise, with a clear intro and a structured parameter list. It avoids verbosity while including essential examples and defaults. The format is front-loaded with purpose, followed by parameter details, though it could be slightly more compact by moving examples inline.

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 simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers necessary usage specifics: required code, optional dates, and defaults. It lacks details on pagination or limits, but these are not explicitly needed for basic invocation and the output schema handles return format.

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 thoroughly explains each parameter: codigo with multiple concrete examples, date formats, and defaults. Since the schema has zero descriptions, this compensation is crucial and effectively makes the tool callable without further research.

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 queries time series from Banco Central's SGS system, using a specific verb ('Consulta') and resource. It differentiates from siblings by naming the source system, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other BCB tools like bcb_cambio or bcb_focus, so it's clear but not fully distinguished.

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, such as bcb_cambio or bcb_focus. It gives code examples but no context for selection criteria among sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer applicability.

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