get-fundos-imobiliarios

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions automatic identification and consolidated return, but lacks details on error handling, invalid tickers, rate limits, or side effects. This leaves significant transparency gaps.

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 concise at three sentences, with the purpose stated upfront. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is adequate but lacks specifics on return format or what 'indicadores' are. For completeness, more detail on output would be beneficial.

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 description adds little beyond the schema description for the tickers parameter. Schema coverage is 100%, and the schema already explains the parameter well, so the description provides no additional meaningful semantics.

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 the tool's purpose: fetching indicators for FIIs, FIAgros, and FII-Infra automatically. It also distinguishes from siblings (get-fiis, get-fiagros, get-fii-infra) by emphasizing automatic classification.

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 explicitly recommends use when handling multiple tickers without classification concerns, providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it (e.g., when all tickers are of one type, specific tools might be better).

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