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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool performs a consultation and does not clarify whether the result is an aggregated count or a paginated list, nor does it disclose pagination, filtering behavior, or other operational characteristics.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant wording. Every part of it contributes to identifying the tool's purpose.

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 simple query tool with fully documented parameters, this reaches the minimum viability threshold. However, with no output schema or annotations, the description should more clearly state whether the tool returns a single quantity or a list of records, and it does not.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3 even though the description adds no parameter-level detail. The phrase 'por trimestre' only reinforces the trimestre parameter and does not explain top, filtro, or ordenar_por beyond what the schema already provides.

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 names a specific resource ('estabelecimentos credenciados'), a specific action ('Consulta'), and the relevant time dimension ('por trimestre'). This clearly separates it from sibling tools focused on taxas, terminais, portadores, and transações.

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 says nothing about when to use this tool versus any of its siblings, and no alternative tools are referenced. The only implicit clue is 'por trimestre', which could help distinguish it from monthly tools, but that selection logic is never stated.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. The verb 'Consulta' implies a read-only operation and the description discloses data scope plus the YYYYMM date constraint. But it says nothing about response shape, pagination limits, or other operational behavior that an agent would need to know when invoking it.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: the first states purpose and scope with concrete payment-method examples, the second pins down the required date format with a worked example. Purpose is front-loaded.

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 query tool with 4 parameters and 1 required, the description plus fully-covered schema provide the essentials: what it does, its monthly scope, and the required parameter format. A brief note on the return shape would strengthen it, especially given the absence of an output schema, but nothing critical is missing for invoking it correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description's YYYYMM format guidance merely repeats what the schema already states for ano_mes and adds nothing new about top, skip, or filtro.

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?

Specific verb 'Consulta' (query) plus a clear resource: 'dados mensais sobre meios de pagamento', with explicit scope enumeration (boletos, PIX, TED, DOC). The 'mensal' qualifier inherently separates it from the 'trimestral' sibling, so an agent can tell them apart without opening either tool.

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 establishes clear usage context by stating this tool covers monthly data, which implicitly contrasts with the quarterly payment-method sibling. However, it never explicitly names the alternative or states a when-not-to-use condition, leaving the routing to inference.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Consulta' implies a read-only operation, and the resource phrase indicates what data is returned. The format caveat adds context about how trimestre is interpreted. However, nothing is disclosed about pagination behavior, OData filtering, result limits, or response shape, which matters given there is no output schema.

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?

Two compact sentences with purpose stated first and the format rule second. The second sentence is redundant with the schema's trimestre description, but it is short and usefully emphasizes the only required parameter. No wasted words overall.

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 straightforward read-query tool, the purpose and the required parameter's format are adequately covered. But with no annotations and no output schema, the description offers no hints about the response contents, nor does it route the agent between the quarterly and monthly variants. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3 even without parameter detail in the description. The description's YYYYQ guidance for trimestre merely restates what the schema already documents ('Ano e trimestre no formato YYYYQ'), adding no new meaning; top, skip, and filtro are left entirely to the schema. The description neither compensates for gaps nor adds value beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Consulta') and resource ('dados trimestrais sobre operações com cartões de pagamento e transferências de crédito'), making the tool's subject matter clear. The word 'trimestrais' implicitly distinguishes it from the monthly sibling consultar_meios_pagamento_mensal, but no sibling is named explicitly, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 only guidance offered is the YYYYQ format instruction for the trimestre parameter, which is a parameter-format rule rather than tool-selection guidance. There is no statement about when to use this tool versus consultar_meios_pagamento_mensal or the other transaction-query siblings, and no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It merely repeats the read-style verb 'consulta' and the quarter filter, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any required permissions, return behavior, or limitations. The behavioral information provided adds little beyond what the tool name and schema already imply.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is short and to the point, though it omits some guidance; conciseness itself is effective.

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 simple read-oriented tool, the schema covers all parameters and the description states the purpose. However, there is no output schema or sibling context, and the description does not indicate what the returned 'informações' contain, leaving some ambiguity. Overall it is minimally sufficient but not complete.

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 100%, and each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds no parameter details beyond the generic quarter scope, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 an explicit verb ('consulta') and a concrete resource ('portadores de cartões de pagamento'), and the 'por trimestre' qualifier ties it to the required quarter parameter. It clearly distinguishes the tool from the sibling tools, which deal with taxes, terminals, payment methods, transactions, and merchants.

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?

There is no mention of when to use this tool versus its seven siblings, and no exclusions or alternative routing. The description only states the general purpose, leaving an agent to infer the selection from the resource name alone.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a query-like read operation, but does not disclose whether it is read-only, whether authentication or permissions are needed, how results are returned, or any side effects. This is minimal for a tool with no annotation support.

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 a single, focused sentence with no redundant or filler content. It is efficiently front-loaded with the core action and resource, though it is arguably too brief given the lack of annotations and sibling differentiation.

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?

The tool has no annotations, no output schema, and several closely related sibling tools. The description does not explain the return value, required quarter format behavior, pagination implications, or how this tool differs from alternatives. This is not enough context for an agent to select and invoke it correctly in all situations.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents all three parameters including the required 'trimestre' format and the 'top' and 'filtro' purpose. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which lands at the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states a specific action ('Consulta') and a specific resource ('taxas de desconto cobradas de estabelecimentos comerciais por operações com meios de pagamento'). The subject matter is distinct enough from sibling tools like consultar_taxas_intercambio or consultar_transacoes_cartoes, though it does not explicitly name or contrast itself with any sibling.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus sibling alternatives. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage context; it does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or preferred scenarios.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden alone. It only signals a read-style query via 'Consulta' and the quarterly window; it does not disclose response shape, pagination, error behavior, or access requirements.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes the resource, domain, and period, making it economically written.

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 simple three-parameter query tool, the schema covers the required trimestre format and optional top/filtro. However, with no output schema or annotations, the description leaves the return payload and selection guidance unspecified, which keeps it slightly below complete.

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 documents all three parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter detail beyond the quarterly scope mentioned in the purpose, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Consulta' and names the exact resource, 'taxas de intercâmbio ... por trimestre.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like consultar_taxas_desconto and the monthly/quarterly payment-means tools.

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?

There is no guidance about when to choose this tool over the siblings, no exclusions, and no prerequisites. The only usage signal is the quarterly scope embedded in the purpose, which is not explicit usage guidance.

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

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

Como não há annotations, a descrição carrega a responsabilidade de indicar comportamento. Ela comunica que é uma operação de leitura/consulta e que os dados são agregados por trimestre, mas não descreve o formato do retorno, limites além do default de top, ou quaisquer restrições operacionais.

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?

A descrição é uma frase única, sem palavras desnecessárias, com o recurso principal e a dimensão temporal claramente front-loaded. O parêntese explicativo (ATM/caixas eletrônicos) agrega clareza sem inflar o texto.

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?

Para um tool simples de consulta, com todos os parâmetros documentados no schema, a descrição é suficiente para identificar o propósito. No entanto, não há output schema e a descrição não detalha quais estatísticas são retornadas, o que deixa uma lacuna perceptível para o agente saber exatamente o que esperar.

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?

A cobertura do schema é 100%, então os parâmetros já estão bem documentados. A descrição apenas ecoa 'por trimestre', que corresponde ao parâmetro obrigatório trimestre, sem adicionar significado novo sobre top, filtro ou formato exato de trimestre além do que o schema já informa.

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?

A descrição usa o verbo 'Consulta' e identifica um recurso específico ('terminais de autoatendimento (ATM/caixas eletrônicos)') com granularidade temporal ('por trimestre'), o que a distingue dos irmãos como consultar_taxas_intercambio e consultar_estabelecimentos_credenciados pelo assunto. Falta, porém, uma comparação explícita com outros tools ou a natureza exata das estatísticas retornadas.

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?

O caso de uso é implícito: o agente deve inferir que esta ferramenta é adequada quando a consulta envolve estatísticas de ATMs por trimestre. Não há orientação explícita sobre quando usar uma alternativa nem sobre exclusões ou pré-requisitos.

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

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does convey that this is a read operation returning quantity and value data, but it contains an internal contradiction between 'estoque e transações' and 'dados sobre... transações', and it omits behavioral traits like pagination (top defaults to 100), OData filtering, and sorting, which materially affect results.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences that state the action and return data efficiently. Minor waste exists: 'transações' and 'cartões' appear in both sentences, and the misleading 'estoque' mention in sentence one could be removed without losing meaning.

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 and no annotations, the description must explain return values and behavior, but it only vaguely says 'quantidade e valor das transações' without structure, pagination, or scope details. It also fails to differentiate from quarterly-payment siblings, leaving an agent uncertain about which tool to invoke.

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 100% and the parameter descriptions are already informative, including the YYYYQ format example, the default value of 100, and an OData filter explanation. The tool description adds no parameter meaning beyond echoing 'por trimestre', so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (consultar transações de cartões por trimestre) and discloses the return subject (quantidade e valor das transações). However, the first sentence mentions 'estoque e transações' while the second clarifies only transaction data is returned, creating ambiguity about whether the tool also queries physical card stock.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus the overlapping siblings, particularly consultar_meios_pagamento_trimestral which also queries quarterly payment data. The only implicit context is 'por trimestre' echoed in the required trimestre parameter; no exclusions or alternatives are named.

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