Verificar CEP

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose a real payment of $0.01 in USDC on Base mainnet, which is an important side effect, but it does not clarify other behavioral aspects such as failure modes or whether any state changes occur.

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 and well-structured: it front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence and adds the cost detail in the second. No unnecessary words.

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?

With no output schema, the description should clarify what the caller receives, but it only says 'Valida um CEP/endereço'. It is ambiguous whether the result is a boolean, an address object, or an error response. The payment information is useful but does not fully compensate for this gap.

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 input schema already describes the cep parameter as 'CEP brasileiro, 8 dígitos, com ou sem hífen', so coverage is high. The description adds little beyond the schema, keeping the baseline score at 3.

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?

Description clearly states a specific action ('Valida um CEP/endereço brasileiro') and resource. The tool is easily distinguished from siblings like validar_cpf or verificar_cnpj by the CEP/address focus.

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?

Usage is implied by the tool name and description—use when validating a Brazilian CEP/address—but there is no explicit mention of when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.

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