Skip to main content
Glama

CDF Finance

by io.github.VessellTech

Projeção de patrimônio líquido

networth_projection
Read-only

Projeção mensal (até 12 meses) do patrimônio líquido (caixa projetado + total de equities), sem detalhar categorias de gasto/receita. Recorte de cashflow_forecast focado só em patrimônio — use este quando o interesse é só a curva de patrimônio, e wealth_evolution quando precisar separar quanto do crescimento veio de aporte vs valorização dos ativos (esse é histórico, não projeção).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
monthsNoQuantidade de meses a projetar, 1-12 (default 12)
userIdNoId do cliente a consultar (uso de planejador financeiro); omitido usa o próprio usuário autenticado
includePendingNoSe true (default), considera transações pendentes; false usa só o realizado e força recálculo ao vivo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
monthsNo
generatedAtNo
startingNetWorthNo

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • addedInput schema / properties / includePending
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Se true (default), considera transações pendentes; false usa só o realizado e força recálculo ao vivo",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / months
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Quantidade de meses a projetar, 1-12 (default 12)",
+  "type": "number"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / userId
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Id do cliente a consultar (uso de planejador financeiro); omitido usa o próprio usuário autenticado",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it is a projection focused only on net worth, intentionally omits category detail, and explains how it relates to cashflow_forecast and wealth_evolution. This exceeds the annotation baseline without contradicting it.

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 dense sentences carry the full purpose, scope, limitation, and sibling differentiation with no filler. The most important information is front-loaded, and every clause earns its place.

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

Completeness5/5

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

The output schema exists and the params are fully documented, so the description does not need to repeat return formats or parameter details. It provides the missing selection context, projection horizon, composition of net worth, and the key distinction from wealth_evolution, making the tool complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter (months, userId, includePending) is already documented in the input schema. The description reinforces the 1-12 month scope and the net worth focus but does not add significant parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline of 3.

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 a specific action and resource: monthly projection (up to 12 months) of net worth composed of projected cash plus equities. It also explicitly states what it does not do (does not detail spending/revenue categories) and distinguishes itself from wealth_evolution and cashflow_forecast, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Usage guidance is explicit: use this tool when only the net worth curve is needed, and use wealth_evolution when the user needs to separate contribution vs. asset appreciation. It also clarifies that wealth_evolution is historical while this is a projection, giving the agent a clear selection criterion.

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

All CDF Finance toolsInspect
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.

Resources