Lista as profissões com maior volume de admissões formais no CAGED, ordenadas por número de contratações no período. Útil pra explorar quais famílias CBO têm dado disponível.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Quantidade de profissões a retornar (1-100, default 20) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does state that results are ordered by number of hires and sourced from CAGED, but it does not clarify the response format, the exact meaning of 'período', or explicitly confirm this is a read-only operation.
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 concise sentences with the primary behavior front-loaded and no filler or repetition. The exploratory use case is a useful addition without bloating the text.
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?
For a simple one-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers the source, ordering, and intended use. It omits explicit return fields and is slightly vague about the time period, but these are modest gaps given the low complexity.
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 only parameter, 'limit', is fully documented in the schema with range and default values (schema coverage 100%). The description adds no additional parameter nuance, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 action ('Lista'), the resource ('profissões com maior volume de admissões formais no CAGED'), and the sorting criterion ('ordenadas por número de contratações no período'). This distinguishes it from the many calculate_* and get_* sibling tools.
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 gives a clear use case: 'Útil pra explorar quais famílias CBO têm dado disponível.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives, but the intent is reasonably clear for a list/exploration tool.
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.
