Brazil Market Rates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does add value by stating that values are annual percentages and sourced via BrasilAPI. However, it does not mention update frequency, whether the data is current, or what the response structure contains, leaving some behavioral uncertainty for an agent relying solely on the description.

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 two short sentences that front-load the core content (the rate names) and add the essential qualifier about units and source. There is no filler or repetition.

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 no-parameter data lookup, the description covers what the tool returns (SELIC, CDI, IPCA), the format (annual percentage values), and the provenance (BrasilAPI). The presence of an output schema means the description need not explain return fields in detail. A brief note about these being current/latest values would make it fully complete, but the current text is adequate for a simple read-only tool.

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, so parameter semantics are not applicable. Per the rubric, a no-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4; the description appropriately focuses on the return values rather than input fields.

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 the specific verb 'Get' and names the exact resource: Brazil's key market rates (SELIC, CDI, IPCA). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools by naming the specific rates and the Brazil scope, so an agent knows exactly what data to expect.

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 a use case (retrieving current Brazilian market rates) but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over siblings like brazil_historical_series or currency_convert. It does not state exclusions such as 'for historical data, use brazil_historical_series' or 'for exchange rates, use currency_convert'.

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