Lista contas a receber (parcelas de receita). Filtros: tamanho_pagina, pagina, data_vencimento_de, data_vencimento_ate (YYYY-MM-DD; se omitidas, lista todas), status (PERDIDO, RECEBIDO, EM_ABERTO, RENEGOCIADO, RECEBIDO_PARCIAL, ATRASADO), ids_clientes (UUID do cliente).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pagina | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| account | No | ||
| ids_clientes | No | ||
| tamanho_pagina | No | ||
| data_vencimento_de | No | ||
| data_vencimento_ate | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's safety profile is covered. The description adds filtering details (date range, status, client IDs) but does not disclose pagination behavior or other traits beyond filtering.
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 a single concise sentence listing filters. No wasted words, and the structure is front-loaded with the core purpose. Every element serves a purpose.
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?
Given 7 parameters with no output schema, the description covers most filtering options but lacks pagination behavior explanation. It is largely complete for a list tool but could be improved with pagination details.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning for 6 out of 7 parameters (date format, status enum values, UUID hint). However, it omits the 'account' parameter entirely, which is a gap.
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 lists 'contas a receber' (receivables), which is a specific resource. The verb 'Lista' and resource are explicit, and it distinguishes from sibling list tools (e.g., payables) by naming the specific type.
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 lists filters but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_installments). Usage context is implied by the resource name and filters, but no when-not guidance or alternative suggestions are provided.
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.