reservas_internacionales

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Consulta' clearly signals a read-only operation, and the description adds useful context by naming Banco de México as the source and stating the units. It does not describe edge cases or return structure, but for a zero-parameter read-only query this is sufficient.

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 sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action ('Consulta') and the resource, then immediately adds the source and units. Every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter query tool with an output schema present, the description is complete enough: it identifies the metric, source, and units. It does not explicitly say whether the result is the latest snapshot or a historical series, but this is a minor gap given the simple nature of the tool and the availability of a sibling for series queries.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema confirms this with 100% description coverage. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description adds no conflicting parameter information. There is nothing more to explain about arguments.

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 uses a specific verb ('Consulta'), names the exact resource ('saldo de reservas internacionales netas del Banco de México'), and specifies units ('millones de dólares'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like tipo_cambio_usd, inflacion_mexico, and valor_udis, which cover different Mexican economic indicators.

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 implies the tool should be used when the agent needs Mexico's net international reserves, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or mention sibling tools. The usage context is clear from the metric name, but no explicit guidance or exclusions are provided.

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