finanzas_comparar_cuentas

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool's function but lacks details on behavioral traits such as whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns real-time or cached data, or how it handles errors. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 and well-structured, consisting of a single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key outputs. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague language, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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 low complexity (1 parameter with full schema coverage) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is minimally complete. It explains what the tool does but doesn't compensate for missing behavioral details or output information, resulting in an adequate but incomplete context for an agent.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'tipo' fully documented in the schema (including enum values and default). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 for adequate but not enhanced parameter semantics.

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 purpose: comparing savings accounts and digital wallets in Colombia, with specific metrics like performance, management fees, and GMF. It uses specific verbs ('Compara', 'Muestra') and identifies the resource, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'finanzas_comparar_cdt' or 'finanzas_simular_credito' beyond the different financial products.

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. While it specifies the types of accounts compared, it doesn't mention when to choose this over other financial tools like 'finanzas_comparar_cdt' (for CDs) or 'finanzas_simular_credito' (for loans), nor does it indicate any prerequisites or exclusions for its use.

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