CDF Finance

Atualizar investimento

update_equity

Idempotent

Atualiza campos de um investimento existente (id = id do investimento). Campos omitidos mantêm o valor atual — exceto description/ticker/exchange/shares, que quando enviados como string vazia são limpos (setados para null). Se value e/ou cost forem enviados, registra automaticamente uma nova avaliação (EquityValuation) datada de agora com os valores resultantes — equivalente a um add_equity_valuation implícito sem data retroativa. Para registrar um valor histórico numa data específica sem alterar os outros campos do investimento, use add_equity_valuation em vez desta.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "update_equity"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Id do investimento (Equity) a atualizar
`cost`	No	Novo custo/valor investido — se informado, registra nova avaliação
`name`	No	Novo nome
`type`	No	Novo tipo do ativo — ex: stocks, crypto, real-estate-house
`color`	No	Nova cor associada na UI
`value`	No	Novo valor de mercado — se informado, registra nova avaliação
`shares`	No	Nova quantidade de cotas/ações
`ticker`	No	Novo código do ativo na bolsa; string vazia remove o ticker
`exchange`	No	Nova bolsa/exchange; string vazia remove
`description`	No	Nova descrição; string vazia limpa o campo
`acquisitionDate`	No	Nova data de aquisição (ISO)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	No
`cost`	No
`name`	No
`type`	No	Tipo do ativo — ex: stocks, crypto, real-estate-house
`color`	No
`value`	No
`shares`	No
`ticker`	No
`userId`	No
`exchange`	No
`createdAt`	No
`updatedAt`	No
`description`	No
`acquisitionDate`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed11 schema fields changedSep 1, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / acquisitionDate

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Nova data de aquisição (ISO)",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / color

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Nova cor associada na UI",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / cost / description

Added value: +"Novo custo/valor investido — se informado, registra nova avaliação"

addedInput schema / properties / description

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Nova descrição; string vazia limpa o campo",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / exchange

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Nova bolsa/exchange; string vazia remove",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / id / description

Added value: +"Id do investimento (Equity) a atualizar"

addedInput schema / properties / name / description
```
Added value: +"Novo nome"
```

addedInput schema / properties / shares

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Nova quantidade de cotas/ações",
+  "type": "number"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / ticker / description

Added value: +"Novo código do ativo na bolsa; string vazia remove o ticker"

addedInput schema / properties / type

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Novo tipo do ativo — ex: stocks, crypto, real-estate-house",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / value / description

Added value: +"Novo valor de mercado — se informado, registra nova avaliação"

First observedSep 1, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

Although the description discloses useful behavioral details like empty-string clearing and automatic EquityValuation creation, it directly contradicts the `idempotentHint: true` annotation. The description says that sending `value` and/or `cost` registers a new EquityValuation dated now, so repeated identical calls would create multiple valuations. This is a non-idempotent side effect, making the description contradict the annotation.

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?

The description is compact and well structured. It leads with the core action, then explains edge-case behavior, then closes with the alternative tool usage. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 complex mutation tool with 11 parameters and side effects, the description covers the key operational details: field update semantics, empty-string clearing, automatic valuation behavior, and when to choose the sibling tool. An output schema exists, so return-value details are not required. The unresolved contradiction with `idempotentHint` prevents a perfect completeness score, but that issue is already counted under behavioral transparency.

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 adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: omitted fields retain their current value, empty strings clear certain fields, and the implicitly created valuation is dated now with no retroactive date. There is a minor inconsistency where `shares` is listed among string-cleared fields even though its schema type is number, so a perfect score is not warranted.

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 clearly states the action: updating fields of an existing investment identified by `id`. It also distinguishes itself from `add_equity_valuation` by explicitly noting the difference between implicit current-date valuation and historical valuation. This is specific, unambiguous, and differentiates the tool from its 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?

The description explicitly tells the agent when to use `add_equity_valuation` instead: when recording a historical value on a specific date without changing other investment fields. It also implicitly conveys that `update_equity` is the right choice for updating existing investment fields and optionally recording a current valuation. This is strong routing guidance.

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

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.