Retrieve details for a specific asset by ticker to check DLPInvest portfolio and asset data.
Recupera detalhes de um ativo especifico pelo ticker.
Args:
ticker: Ticker do ativo (ex: PETR4).
Returns:
Dict with ``success`` and either ``data`` or ``error``.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ticker | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only discloses the return envelope ('success' and either 'data' or 'error') and implies a read via 'Recupera'; it says nothing about auth, error conditions, or whether a missing ticker returns an error versus empty data.
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 purpose statement is front-loaded and the Args/Returns structure is easy to scan. The Returns line is largely redundant since an output schema exists, slightly diluting the concise intent.
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 low-complexity single-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers the essentials and need not restate return values. It falls short on usage routing and error behavior, leaving minor gaps an agent could trip on.
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 compensate. It does define the single parameter ('Ticker do ativo') and supplies a concrete example ('PETR4'), which is useful, but adds no format rules, case sensitivity, or validation constraints.
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 ('Recupera'), resource ('detalhes de um ativo') and lookup key ('pelo ticker'), making it distinguishable from the list-style sibling obter_ativos_tool. It does not, however, explicitly name the sibling it differs from, so the differentiation must be inferred.
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 says what the tool does but gives no when-to-use/when-not guidance and does not mention the alternative obter_ativos_tool or any prerequisite. An agent must guess that this is the single-asset counterpart to the asset list tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.