Saldo atual de uma conta financeira por id (banco/caixa/cartão). Pegue o id em contaazul_list_financial_accounts.
Bulk support: accepts ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| ids | No | ||
| account | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds that the tool accepts batched execution via the 'ids' parameter, which is useful beyond annotations. It does not contradict annotations.
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?
Two sentences: first covers purpose and id source, second covers batch support. No filler or redundancy. Front-loaded and efficient.
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?
Tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, but annotations exist. Description explains purpose and batch support, but omits details about the return format and the 'account' parameter. Adequate for a simple getter but lacks completeness.
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 coverage is 0% (no descriptions in schema). The description explains the 'id' and 'ids' parameters (the latter for batch), but does not explain the 'account' parameter. This partial explanation is adequate but incomplete.
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 it retrieves the current balance of a financial account by ID (bank/cash/card), specifies where to get the ID (contaazul_list_financial_accounts), and mentions bulk support. It is distinct from siblings like contaazul_get_initial_balance.
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 clear usage context: use to get current balance, get ID from another tool, and supports batched execution. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like contaazul_get_initial_balance for initial balances.
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.
Multiple tools are easily confused: person_write_create/person_write_update and sale_write_create/sale_write_update duplicate the same operation with an internal action flag, and authenticate vs connect both deal with connection setup. Also, list_accounts (company installs) and list_financial_accounts (bank accounts) have similar names but different meanings.
Naming patterns vary widely: verb_noun (create_budget, list_people) is mixed with noun_verb (contract_write, person_delete, product_write). The contaazul_ prefix is applied inconsistently, and standalone names like authenticate, connect, marketplace, and toolkit_info break the pattern. Flattened action pairs add redundant, non-idiomatic names.
With 57 tools, this server exceeds the 50+ threshold for an extreme count. The tool list is bloated with generic platform tools (authenticate, marketplace, report_bug) alongside dozens of domain-specific ones, making it overwhelming for agents to parse and select from.
The Conta Azul domain is well represented: people, products, services, sales, budgets, contracts, financial accounts, receivables/payables, settlements, charges, invoices, and transfers all have read/create/list operations, and most have update/cancel/delete. Minor gaps like product update/delete or service update exist due to API limitations, but the core workflows are covered.