tipo_cambio_usd

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 input semantics and date formats but does not describe return behavior, error cases, rate source details, or any operational constraints. The read-only nature is implied by 'Consulta' but not explicitly stated.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-line summary followed by a concise parameter list. There is no redundant or filler content, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 three optional parameters, the description covers the essential invocation details: resource, parameter meanings, defaults, and formats. An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is unnecessary; the main omission is explicit sibling differentiation, which is already partially addressed by purpose clarity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining the 'tipo' options ('FIX' and 'LIQUIDACION'), defaults, and accepted date formats for both date parameters. Every parameter is given meaningful context beyond its name and schema type.

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 states a specific verb ('Consulta') and resource ('tipo de cambio oficial peso mexicano vs dólar estadounidense (USD/MXN)'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It is also naturally differentiated from sibling tools, which address inflation, UDIs, interest rates, and reserves.

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 this tool is for USD/MXN exchange rate queries, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over the sibling tools or when not to use it. The domain is clear enough for an agent to infer the use case, but no explicit routing guidance is provided.

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