historico_cambio

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 reveals only that the result is a historical series; it does not mention response format, ordering, business-day handling, or potential errors. This is minimal for a data-retrieval 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 two short sentences with no redundant words. The core purpose is front-loaded, and every phrase adds either purpose or a format constraint.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and three undocumented parameters, this description is too sparse. It lacks currency format guidance, response expectations, and any differentiation from sibling exchange-rate tools, leaving an agent to infer critical call details.

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. It adds the date format 'aaaa-mm-dd' for the date parameters but does not clarify how 'moeda' should be specified (e.g., currency code) or whether the date range is inclusive.

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 the tool returns a historical PTAX series for a currency ('Série histórica PTAX de uma moeda'), which clearly identifies the resource and operation. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_cotacao or get_serie_sgs, but the term 'PTAX' adds specificity.

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 alternatives such as get_cotacao or get_serie_sgs. The date-format note is a parameter formatting hint, not usage-context guidance.

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