Calcula plano de quitação de dívidas pelo método avalanche (maior juros primeiro) ou bola de neve (menor saldo primeiro). Compara os dois. Parâmetros obrigatórios: debts. Opcionais: extra_payment. Use exatamente estes nomes, em inglês.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| debts | Yes | Lista de dívidas | |
| extra_payment | No | Valor extra mensal além dos mínimos em R$ |
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 says the tool 'calcula' and 'compara', but it does not describe the return format, whether it assumes a certain payment schedule, any limitations, or side effects. For a calculator with no output schema, this is a significant transparency 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 brief and front-loaded with the core functionality, followed by parameter instructions. It contains no fluff, but the sentence 'Parâmetros obrigatórios: debts. Opcionais: extra_payment.' largely duplicates the schema's required list. The added instruction to use exact English names earns some value, but the redundancy prevents a 5.
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 two parameters and a complete schema, but there is no output schema and the description does not explain what the comparison result looks like. An agent would not know whether the tool returns monthly payment plans, total interest savings, payoff timelines, or a simple recommendation. This missing return-value context is a critical gap for a calculator tool.
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 a useful instruction to use exact English parameter names and identifies which parameter is required vs optional, but it does not add semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The core meanings of 'debts' and 'extra_payment' are already fully documented in 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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: it calculates a debt payoff plan using two distinct methods (avalanche and snowball) and compares them. It also names the required and optional parameters, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does. It stands apart from the many sibling calculators by explicitly identifying the comparison behavior.
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 the tool — when the user wants to compare avalanche vs snowball debt payoff strategies. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or which sibling tools (e.g., compare_loans) might be more appropriate for other debt comparisons. The guidance is limited to parameter usage, not situational selection.
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.
