Afp Valor Cuota

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: non-business days fall back to the previous day, ranges over three months return only the first and last month, and SBS data is published roughly two weeks after month end. It does not describe authentication or rate-limit behavior, but those are less central here.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and examples, then follows with parameter rules and data-availability caveats. Every sentence adds actionable information, and the length is appropriate for a tool with four parameters and non-obvious range behavior.

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 four parameters, two required fields, an output schema, and annotations covering read-only/open-world behavior, the description is complete enough to call the tool correctly. It covers parameter values, date semantics, default AFP behavior, range truncation, and publication delay without needing to explain return structure because an output schema exists.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does so effectively. It explains fondo as 0, 1, 2 or 3; afp as Habitat, Integra, Prima or Profuturo with all as default; and desde/hasta format and semantics, including the single-day and non-business-day fallback behavior.

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 resource and measurement: daily quota value in soles per AFP and fund, plus percentage variation between first and last date. It gives example questions that make the tool’s intent concrete. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the related sibling afp_rentabilidad, which could overlap with the “how much did fund 1 yield” example.

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?

It gives clear usage examples (“¿cuánto vale la cuota del fondo 2 de Integra?” and “¿cuánto rindió el fondo 1 en setiembre?”), which tells the agent when the tool is appropriate. It also discloses relevant range and publication constraints, but it does not explicitly name when to use a sibling tool instead.

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