Scores fundamentalistas prontos com a conta aberta: Piotroski F-Score (0-9, cada um dos 9 critérios auditável) e o critério de Graham (barato se P/L × P/VP ≤ 22,5). Banco não tem Piotroski. WEGE3 gratuita.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ticker | Yes | ||
| chave_api | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It does mention that banks do not have Piotroski scores and that WEGE3 is free, which is useful context. However, it does not clarify return format, authentication requirements, any side effects, or what happens if the account is not open. The 'com a conta aberta' prerequisite is vague and unexplained.
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 concise at three sentences and front-loads the main purpose. Some details like 'cada um dos 9 critérios auditável' are useful but could be trimmed; overall it is well-organized and avoids 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?
The tool has no output schema and only two parameters, so the description is the main source of context. It explains the two scoring methodologies and includes exceptions, which is helpful. However, it lacks parameter semantics, auth details, and explicit usage guidance, leaving noticeable gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only implicitly mentions the ticker by giving 'WEGE3' as an example. It does not explain the format or meaning of the 'ticker' parameter, nor does it mention the 'chave_api' parameter at all. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to correctly populate both arguments.
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 provides fundamental scores (Piotroski F-Score and Graham's criterion), mentioning specific details like the 0-9 range and the P/L × P/VP ≤ 22.5 threshold. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming these specific scoring methodologies, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'calculates' or 'returns'.
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?
No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'com a conta aberta' implies a prerequisite (open account) but does not explain it, and there is no mention of situations to avoid or sibling comparisons. The only concrete usage hint is that WEGE3 is free, but that does not help an agent decide when to invoke this 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.
Mosttools have distinct purposes, but there are minor overlap risk between 'dicionario' (formulas) and 'metodologia' (method explanation), and between 'fiis_ranking' and 'screener_fiis', although the descriptions are clear.
Naming mixes Portuguese and English styles (e.g., 'screener', 'ranking'), with irregular patterns: mostly singular nouns rather than standard verb_noun. Also inconsistent accents and underscores, but no camelCase.
14 tools in a B3 data server is a reasonable scope covering most core financial analytics, indicator dictionaries, screens and rankings.
Good coverage of financial statements, dividends, balance sheet/health, FII analytics and price multiple; lacks a direct cash-flow statement tool/earnings date tracker, but the overall surface covers most use cases.