Compara empréstimos de diferentes bancos pelo CET real (Custo Efetivo Total). Útil para portabilidade de crédito. Parâmetros obrigatórios: loans. Use exatamente estes nomes, em inglês.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| loans | Yes | Lista de empréstimos para comparar |
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 explains that the comparison is based on 'CET real' and emphasizes exact parameter names, which adds some behavioral context, but it does not disclose output format, side effects, or error behavior. This is adequate for a read-only comparison tool but not rich.
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 four short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and use case, then provides a necessary calling convention about using exact English parameter names.
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 input side is fully documented by the schema, and the description provides the comparison dimension and intended use case. There is no output schema, so the return format is not described, but for a comparison tool invoked by an agent this is largely sufficient.
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?
The input schema already has 100% coverage, including descriptions for the loans array and all nested properties. The description reinforces mandatory parameters and exact English field names, but it does not add semantic meaning beyond what the schema already documents.
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 compares loans from different banks using the real CET, which is a specific verb, resource, and comparison criterion. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like compare_investments and calculate_cet because it names loans and banks explicitly.
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 provides a clear use case: it is useful for credit portability. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool, but the context is specific enough for an agent to understand when this comparison tool is appropriate.
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.
