Calcula DAS ou tributo federal em atraso: multa de mora de 0,33% ao dia (limitada a 20%) e juros pela Selic acumulada REAL da série oficial entre o vencimento e o pagamento, mais 1% do mês do pagamento.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| amount | Yes | Valor original do tributo em R$ | |
| due_date | Yes | Data de vencimento em YYYY-MM-DD | |
| payment_date | No | Data do pagamento em YYYY-MM-DD (padrão: hoje) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and it does disclose the exact calculation methodology: 0.33% daily fine (cap 20%), Selic accumulated rate, and 1% of payment month. This is transparent about how it computes the result, though it does not describe output format or edge-case handling.
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 a single dense sentence, front-loaded with the primary purpose before the calculation details. It is efficient with no wasted words, though being one long sentence could benefit from slight structural splitting for readability.
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 the tool's moderate complexity and absence of an output schema, the description adequately explains the calculation method but does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., value breakdown or total). For a calculator, this is often sufficient, but a note on output would improve completeness.
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 all three parameters. The description does not add additional parameter-specific meaning beyond the overall calculation context, meeting the baseline for complete schema coverage.
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 the tool calculates late DAS or federal tax, specifying the exact fine and interest rates. It is specific verb+resource, and the detailed calculation formula distinguishes it from other tax calculators like calculate_darf or calculate_mei_tax.
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 usage for late federal tax calculations but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. Context is inferred from the calculation details rather than explicit guidance.
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.
