Calcula parcelas de financiamento/empréstimo pelo sistema Price (parcelas fixas). Parâmetros obrigatórios: total, installments, monthly_rate. Use exatamente estes nomes, em inglês.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| total | Yes | Valor total em R$ | |
| installments | Yes | Número de parcelas | |
| monthly_rate | Yes | Taxa de juros mensal em % (ex: 2 = 2% ao mês) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the calculation model (Price system, fixed installments) but does not mention return format, rounding behavior, or edge cases. This is a minimum-viable disclosure for a pure calculator and contains no contradiction.
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?
Two short sentences carry all the essential information: what the tool calculates, the calculation method, and the required parameter names. Every sentence earns its place, and the core function is front-loaded.
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?
Given that there is no output schema, the description could have been more explicit about return format or rounding. However, the fixed-installment Price definition plus the fully documented parameters is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in a typical financing calculation scenario.
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 schema already documents the three parameters. The description adds value by explicitly listing the required parameter names and instructing the agent to use exactly these English names, which prevents naming and localization mistakes.
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 the specific verb 'Calcula' and identifies the exact resource: financiamento/empréstimo installments via the Price system with fixed parcels. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like calculate_financing and calculate_compound_interest, which cover other financing or interest calculations.
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 clearly establishes the intended context: loan/financing calculations under the Price system with fixed installments, and states that all three parameters are mandatory. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use conditions, but the intended usage is clear enough.
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.
