Empresas ativas, abertas e baixadas num raio em metros, por CNAE, com aberturas recentes e distância. 10/dia grátis por IP; depois $0.05 (x402 ou crédito).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cep | No | Centro pelo CEP (8 dígitos) | |
| lat | No | Latitude do centro, se não vier `cep`. | |
| lon | No | Longitude do centro, se não vier `cep`. | |
| cnae | No | Prefixo de CNAE: 2, 5 ou 7 dígitos | |
| raio | No | Metros, 1 a 2000 (padrão 500) | |
| desde | No | ISO; padrão 90 dias antes da data da base |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / lat / descriptionAdded value: +"Latitude do centro, se não vier `cep`."Input schema / properties / lon / descriptionAdded value: +"Longitude do centro, se não vier `cep`."Input schema / properties / raio / defaultAdded value: +500Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description transparently discloses the cost structure, which is a key behavioral aspect. It does not mention any destructive side effects, but the tool appears to be a read-only query. Given the lack of annotations, the description carries the burden and provides sufficient transparency about charges and the type of data returned.
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 extremely concise, with two sentences: the first states the main output and filters, the second states the cost model. It is well-structured and front-loaded, making the primary purpose immediately clear without any fluff.
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?
While there is no output schema, the description implies the output includes company records with attributes like recent openings and distance. It gives enough context for an agent to understand the general nature of the results, though it does not specify the exact return format. This is adequate for a simple query tool.
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 schema covers all parameters (cep, lat, lon, cnae, raio, desde) with individual descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description itself does not add extra semantic detail beyond what is already in the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 indicates the tool returns company data (active, opened, and closed) within a radius, filtered by CNAE, including recent openings and distance. It lacks an explicit verb like 'search' or 'list', but the resource and scope are evident and distinct from sibling tools like 'buscar' or 'empresas'.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'buscar', 'proximo', or 'raio'. It mentions pricing (10/day free, $0.05 after) but does not give decision criteria for tool selection, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.