Retrieve share capital events for a Brazilian company by CVM code and year, including amounts, approvals, and share counts.
Share capital events: amounts, approvals and share counts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| year | Yes | Reference year. | |
| cd_cvm | Yes | CVM code from search_company. | |
| version | No | 'last' (default), 'first' or 'all'. | last |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the data categories but does not explain event scope, historical coverage, or pagination behavior; no contradiction with annotations.
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 a single front-loaded fragment with no wasted words. It is very concise, though the noun-phrase form is less clear than a complete sentence stating the action.
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 simple query tool with an output schema and fully documented parameters, the description covers the core data retrieved. It leaves event scope and usage context implicit, which matters for selecting it among many sibling tools.
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 100%, and all three parameters are documented in the schema, including the meaning of version values. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 identifies the resource as share capital events and enumerates the data categories returned (amounts, approvals, share counts). It lacks an explicit verb and does not distinguish itself from siblings, but no sibling appears to cover the same capital-event data.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites beyond what the schema implies, and no alternatives named. Usage is only implied by the resource name and data list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.