Atualiza uma baixa (PATCH). id é o UUID da baixa. data é o JSON com os campos a alterar (data_pagamento, composicao_valor, conta_financeira em UUID string, metodo_pagamento com o mesmo enum de contaazul_settle_installment, observacao). O campo versao é buscado automaticamente.
Bulk support: accepts ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| ids | No | ||
| data | Yes | ||
| account | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate it is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds that it uses PATCH, that the 'versao' field is fetched automatically, and that bulk execution is possible. However, it does not disclose request/response details, error handling, or permissions.
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 concise with two sentences covering the main action and bulk support. It is front-loaded but slightly dense; could be structured into clearer sections.
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 no output schema, the description does not mention return values. The 'account' parameter is unexplained. While purpose is clear, the description lacks completeness for a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema.
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 explains 'id' as UUID and 'data' as JSON with fields like payment_date and payment_method enum. It also mentions 'versao' auto-fetch. However, the 'account' parameter is not explained, leaving a gap despite partial compensation.
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 'Updates a settlement (PATCH)' and specifies that id is the UUID of the settlement, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'contaazul_settle_installment' (creates settlement) and 'contaazul_delete_settlement' (deletes). It also mentions bulk support, further clarifying scope.
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 context for when to use this tool (to update a settlement) and mentions bulk support. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives like creating or deleting settlements, though this can be inferred from sibling tool names.
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.