get_serie_sgs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It confirms a fetch operation and explains the code-to-series mapping, but it omits the response format, error behavior, default time range, and whether the result includes dates or just values. This is minimal for an unannotated tool.

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 compact and front-loaded: first the definition, then illustrative examples, then a brief parameter gloss. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundant 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 two-parameter fetch tool, the core calling contract is present: a numeric code and an optional number of points. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the lack of any statement about the response shape or possible failure modes keeps it from being fully 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 0%, so the description compensates by explaining 'codigo' with concrete examples and 'ultimos' as the number of points. It does not specify valid ranges or the exact effect of 'ultimos' beyond the schema default, but it adds meaningful semantics the schema lacks.

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 operation and resource: fetching a generic SGS series from the Central Bank by numeric code. The examples anchor the meaning of 'codigo' and distinguish this generic tool from the sibling-specific tools like get_selic, get_ipca, and get_cdi.

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 word 'genérica' and the code examples make it clear this tool is intended for arbitrary SGS codes, while dedicated sibling tools cover common named series. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is reasonably clear.

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