ipca_brasilRetrieve Brazil's IPCA index number (base Dec-1993 = 100) for a date range in YYYY-MM format; returns the index level, not the inflation rate.
IPCA de Brasil como número-índice (base dic-1993 = 100), entre dos meses AAAA-MM. Devuelve el índice, no la inflación.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| desde | Yes | ||
| hasta | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nota | Yes | ||
| serie | Yes | ||
| bajado | Yes | ||
| fuente | Yes | ||
| puntos | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.13.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior. The description adds important semantic context beyond annotations: the base period (dic-1993 = 100) and the distinction that it returns an index, not inflation. It does not discuss rate limits or data availability, but given annotation coverage this is a solid addition.
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 two short sentences, front-loads the key resource and output semantics, and wastes no words. The most important clarification (index, not inflation) is placed immediately after the range definition.
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 two-parameter read-only indicator tool with an output schema, the description supplies the essential context: what IPCA is here, the index base, the input date format, and that the return is an index rather than an inflation rate. Minor gaps such as range inclusivity or data availability are not critical for correct invocation.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter semantics. It meaningfully explains that the two parameters are months in AAAA-MM format and together define a range, which compensates substantially for the bare schema. It still leaves boundary inclusivity and per-parameter labeling implicit.
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 specific indicator (IPCA de Brasil as an index number with base Dec-1993=100) and the date range it accepts. It also clarifies that it returns the index rather than inflation, which adds useful distinction, but it does not explicitly name or differentiate against sibling tools such as ipc_argentina.
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 note 'Devuelve el índice, no la inflación' implies when to use this tool (when an index value is needed, not an inflation rate). However, it provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage boundaries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.