obter_proventos_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return contract (a dict with 'success' and either 'data' or 'error'), which is useful, but says nothing about permissions, pagination, or behavior on missing/empty data for a read tool.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then cleanly separates Args and Returns. No wasted sentences; the structure is easy to scan despite being in Portuguese.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and parameters are covered. However, with no annotations and no usage guidance, the definition leaves the agent without routing context among many similar siblings.

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, and it does: it documents all three parameters (carteira as ID or name, data_inicial/data_final) and gives the explicit YYYY-MM-DD date format that the schema lacks.

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) and resource (proventos: dividendos, JCP), with examples clarifying the domain. This distinguishes it from siblings like obter_operacoes_tool or obter_posicao_tool by resource, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the ten sibling 'obter_*' tools, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The agent must infer usage from the resource name alone.

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