Calcula o aviso prévio proporcional: 30 dias + 3 por ano completo de casa (máximo 90), o valor indenizado na demissão sem justa causa e o que o empregado desconta se sair sem cumprir. Parâmetros obrigatórios: salary, full_years_worked. Use exatamente estes nomes, em inglês.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| salary | Yes | Salário mensal em R$ | |
| full_years_worked | Yes | Anos COMPLETOS de casa (ano quebrado não conta) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose the calculation rule and three outcomes: the proportional notice days, the indemnified amount, and the employee discount. However, it does not describe return format, rounding behavior, or assumptions, and there is no output schema to fill that gap.
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, with the formula stated first and no filler. The final instruction about exact parameter names is useful and earns its place.
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 calculator, the description is reasonably complete: it gives the formula, names both parameters, and enumerates the three outputs. It lacks return-shape details and explicit sibling differentiation, but it is sufficient for correct invocation in most cases.
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. The description adds only a reminder of mandatory parameter names and the instruction to use them in English, plus a loose link to the formula. It adds little semantic 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Calcula o aviso prévio proporcional' and even states the formula ('30 dias + 3 por ano completo de casa (máximo 90)'). It is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from overlapping siblings such as calculate_severance or check_severance, so it falls just short of a 5.
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 when to use it by naming the domain and parameters, but it gives no explicit when-to-use conditions, no exclusions, and no alternatives. Given the many sibling labor-related calculators, explicit routing guidance would have been valuable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Many tools are clearly distinct, but the set contains several near-identical clusters: calculate_dividend_income_goal and calculate_dividend_yield both answer 'how much capital is needed to reach a dividend income target', and calculate_real_salary, calculate_raise_vs_inflation, and calculate_salary_time_value overlap heavily on salary/inflation comparisons. Generic tools like compare_investments and compare_with_cdb also blur the boundary with the many specific yield calculators.
Most tools follow a clear verb_noun snake_case pattern with verbs like calculate_, get_, check_, compare_, and advise_. However, the object language is inconsistent (calculate_ganho_capital_imovel alongside calculate_car_affordability), and can_i_quit_job breaks the command-style pattern with a question.
At 114 tools, the server is extremely over-scoped for an MCP surface; an agent cannot reasonably hold all these options in context. The inclusion of a search_calculator tool to route among the others is a strong signal that the tool set itself needs partitioning.
The surface is very comprehensive for Brazilian personal finance: employment, taxes, investments, debt, real estate, vehicles, small business, insurance, and market-data queries are all covered. A few minor gaps exist, such as no dedicated generic boleto-fine calculator or consolidated investment comparison engine, but no core workflow feels badly stranded.
