Calcula férias CLT — valor das férias + 1/3 constitucional + abono pecuniário, com desconto de INSS e de IRRF. Parâmetros obrigatórios: salary. Opcionais: days, sell_days, dependents. Use exatamente estes nomes, em inglês.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | Dias de férias (máx 30) | |
| salary | Yes | Salário bruto mensal em R$ | |
| sell_days | No | Dias vendidos (máx 10) | |
| dependents | No | Número de dependentes para dedução do IRRF |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes what is calculated (vacation + constitutional third + cash bonus, with INSS and IRRF deductions) but does not reveal the return format (single value vs. breakdown), whether the result is net or gross, or any other behavioral details. For a pure calculation tool, this is a notable 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and then parameter guidance. No wasted words; it is concise and structured effectively.
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 there is no output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns. It implies the result includes deductions but does not explicitly state whether it returns a net value, a breakdown, or additional details. The description is adequate for a simple calculation but leaves the return contract unspecified.
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% with descriptions for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats which parameters are required/optional, adding little beyond the schema. It does include a note to use exact parameter names in English, a minor usage hint, but no 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 clearly states it calculates CLT vacation pay, enumerating the components (base vacation, constitutional third, pecuniary bonus) and the deductions (INSS and IRRF). It also lists required and optional parameters. This is specific and distinct from sibling tools like calculate_severance or calculate_aviso_previo.
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?
It explicitly states required and optional parameters, which guides invocation. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. The purpose is clear enough that an agent would likely select it correctly, but there is no direct comparison to siblings.
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.
