Converte uma taxa de juros de um período para outro por equivalência composta (ex: 1,5% ao mês equivale a 19,56% ao ano, e não a 18%). Mostra também o que a multiplicação simples daria, para expor o erro. Parâmetros obrigatórios: rate, from, to. Use exatamente estes nomes, em inglês.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | Yes | Período desejado | |
| from | Yes | Período da taxa informada | |
| rate | Yes | A taxa conhecida, em % (ex: 1.5 para 1,5%) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It states that the calculation uses compound equivalence, also outputs the simple-multiplication result to expose the error, and requires exact English parameter names. It does not detail the response format or rounding behavior, but the core behavior of this pure calculator is transparent.
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 at three sentences, front-loads the main action and example, then adds the comparison-output behavior and parameter-name reminder. The required-parameter list is slightly redundant with the schema, but the exact-name warning 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?
The schema supplies enums and the rate unit, and the description adds the formula, a worked example, and the fact that the response also exposes the simple-multiplication comparison. Since there is no output schema, a more explicit return-shape statement would help, but the definition is sufficient for a simple calculator invocation.
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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents rate units and from/to enums. The description reinforces that rate, from, and to are mandatory and instructs the agent to use exactly those English names, an invocation cue rather than additional semantic meaning.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Converte uma taxa de juros de um período para outro', and specifies the method as compound equivalence with a concrete example (1.5% a.m. → 19.56% a.a.). This clearly distinguishes the tool from the many sibling calculators by defining its exact conversion scope.
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 makes the intended use clear: convert interest rates between periods by compound equivalence, and it contrasts with simple multiplication by showing what 'multiplicação simples' would produce. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the contextual guidance is strong.
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.
