CDF Finance

Criar conta

create_account

Cria uma conta bancária/carteira nova com o usuário autenticado como OWNER. balance é o saldo inicial (default 0), não um saldo calculado a partir de transações — o saldo depois é ajustado incrementalmente conforme transações pagas são criadas/confirmadas/excluídas.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Nome da conta, ex: 'Nubank', 'Carteira'
`type`	Yes	Tipo da conta, ex: CHECKING, SAVINGS, WALLET, INVESTMENT
`color`	No	Cor hex para exibição, ex: #3B82F6
`balance`	No	Saldo inicial (default 0) — não recalculado a partir de transações, é o ponto de partida
`bankCode`	No	Código do banco (ex: FEBRABAN), opcional, sem validação de formato
`currency`	No	Moeda ISO 4217, default BRL
`balanceDate`	No	Data ISO de referência do saldo inicial informado. Default: null (sem data associada)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	No
`name`	No
`type`	No
`color`	No
`userId`	No
`balance`	No
`bankCode`	No
`currency`	No
`createdAt`	No
`updatedAt`	No
`balanceDate`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed4 schema fields changedSep 1, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / balance / description

Previous value: -"Saldo inicial"New value: +"Saldo inicial (default 0) — não recalculado a partir de transações, é o ponto de partida"

addedInput schema / properties / balanceDate

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Data ISO de referência do saldo inicial informado. Default: null (sem data associada)",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / bankCode / description

Added value: +"Código do banco (ex: FEBRABAN), opcional, sem validação de formato"

addedInput schema / properties / color

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Cor hex para exibição, ex: #3B82F6",
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedSep 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the thin annotations (all false), the description discloses the most important behavioral trait: balance is the initial value and is later adjusted incrementally as paid transactions are created/confirmed/deleted. It also states the ownership/authentication context (authenticated user as OWNER), which is exactly the kind of context that helps an agent reason about side effects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, with the main purpose front-loaded and the critical balance nuance in the second sentence. There is no filler; each sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 7-parameter creation tool with a complete schema and output schema, the description covers the core purpose, ownership, and the one non-obvious parameter behavior. It does not explicitly cover usage boundaries versus sibling tools, but the schema and name make most of the remaining context unnecessary.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes further by explaining the balance parameter's role as a starting point and how it evolves with transactions. This adds behavioral meaning beyond the schema property description and helps the agent supply a correct initial balance.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with the specific action 'Cria uma conta bancária/carteira nova' and adds that the authenticated user becomes OWNER, which clearly identifies the resource and scope. The create/update/delete/list sibling cluster is easily disambiguated because 'account' is named explicitly as the new resource.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the situation where it should be used: when a new account/wallet must be created for the authenticated user. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives such as update_account for existing accounts, leaving the routing partly to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All CDF Finance tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

The tools are individually well-described and many cross-reference their closest neighbors, but the set contains several easily confused clusters: create_transaction/confirm_new_transaction, update_equity/add_equity_valuation, the invoice tools (current_invoice, next_invoice, list_pending_invoices, get_invoice), and the many analytics/projection tools. The descriptions help a careful reader, but with 81 tools an agent is likely to misselect among these overlapping surfaces.

Naming Consistency3/5

CRUD operations consistently use create_/list_/update_/delete_ plus a resource noun, and all names are snake_case. However, there is a large second group of noun-phrase analytics tools (cashflow_forecast, spending_projection, categories_insights, transport_routine) plus one-off verbs such as can_afford, pay_invoice, and validate_current_invoices, so the naming convention is mixed even though it remains readable.

Tool Count1/5

81 tools is far beyond the practical MCP tool surface and exceeds the rubric's 50+ extreme-mismatch threshold. Even if each tool maps to a real finance endpoint, the volume overwhelms an agent's context window and makes selection much harder.

Completeness4/5

The server covers the finance lifecycle extensively: accounts, cards, invoices, transactions, recurring rules, budgets, goals, debts, equities, categories, tags, cost centers, profile, projections, and insights all have working read/write paths. Minor gaps remain, such as no update/delete for tags and no direct update/delete for system-generated invoices, but agents can usually work around these.

Criar conta

Input Schema

Output Schema

Schema Changelog

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources