Chile Indicators

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: it returns current values, enumerates the indicator set (UF, UTM, USD, EUR), explains the optional filter, and states the unit convention ('CLP per unit'). This goes beyond the bare schema. Minor gaps remain, such as data freshness (daily vs. real-time) and behavior for invalid or unknown codes, but the core behavioral contract is well covered.

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?

Four short sentences, roughly 50 words, with the core purpose front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place: scope, included indicators, filter usage, and unit convention. No redundancy, no filler.

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 tool with one optional parameter and an output schema present, the description is nearly complete: it states what data is returned, what units, and how to filter. The main omissions are data freshness/staleness and the full set of accepted codes, but these are minor for a simple fetch tool whose return shape is already documented by the output schema.

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 must compensate, and it does: 'Optionally filter with `codes`, e.g. ["UF", "USD"]' explains the purpose of the only parameter, gives a concrete usage example, and clarifies that codes are indicator/currency identifiers. It could go further by listing valid codes or noting case-sensitivity, but for a single optional param, the added meaning is substantial.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Get current Chilean economic indicators and currency values in CLP.' The Chile scope clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like colombia_trm_history, argentina_exchange_rates, and latam_exchange_rates, and the word 'current' signals this is not a historical-series tool like colombia_trm_history. An agent can identify what this tool does and what it is not without opening the schema.

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 context is implied ('current Chilean' suggests use when current Chile-only data is needed) but not explicit. The description never names an alternative for other countries (e.g., latam_exchange_rates or currency_convert for general conversion) nor states when NOT to use this tool. No exclusions, prerequisites, or routing conditions are provided.

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