Revisional de contrato bancário: recalcula o financiamento pela taxa média de mercado do BACEN (busca ao vivo por modalidade+mês) e apura o excedente por parcela (Price ou SAC). A taxa média é referência, não teto (STJ).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sistema | No | ||
| modalidade | No | ||
| num_parcelas | Yes | ||
| parcela_paga | Yes | ||
| data_contrato | No | ||
| taxa_bacen_am | No | ||
| valor_financiado | Yes | ||
| taxa_contratada_am | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint values. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it performs a live BACEN lookup by modality+month, supports Price or SAC, and clarifies that the average rate is a reference, not a ceiling, per STJ. There is no contradiction with 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?
The description is two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds the key calculation method and an important legal caveat. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
The annotations cover the side-effect profile, and the description explains the core algorithm well. Still, with no output schema and 8 parameters whose schema descriptions are absent, the description omits the output format and the behavior/meaning of several optional parameters. It is usable for invocation but not fully complete.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by tying modalidade+mês to the live BACEN lookup and Price/SAC to the sistema parameter, and 'excedente por parcela' clarifies parcela_paga. However, it does not map all 8 parameters or explain optional fields like taxa_bacen_am and data_contrato in detail.
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 opens with 'Revisional de contrato bancário' and states a specific verb: 'recalcula o financiamento' and 'apura o excedente por parcela'. The resource and scope are clear, and the bank-contract-revision domain distinguishes it from the sibling calculo_* tools without ambiguity.
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 phrase 'Revisional de contrato bancário' clearly establishes when this tool applies: bank loan contract revision using BACEN average rates. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5, but the use case is clearly framed.
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.
The calculo_* tools are largely distinct by legal scenario, but several overlap in mechanics—calculo_atualizar, calculo_pensao, calculo_restituicao_inss, and calculo_rmc_rcc all apply correction and interest to overdue amounts. Platform tools also blur boundaries: authenticate/connect both deal with credentials, and marketplace/toolkit_info both describe installation state.
The 16 calculation tools consistently follow a calculo_<domain> snake_case pattern, which is good. However, the 6 platform tools break the convention with single verbs/nouns (connect, marketplace, authenticate) and mixed forms (report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info), creating two inconsistent naming styles within one server.
22 tools is at the high end of reasonable for a legal-calculation suite, but the server name 'Cálculo de FGTS' suggests a much narrower scope. The platform-management tools add bulk and make the set feel broader and heavier than the name implies.
As a Brazilian legal calculation toolkit, the coverage is strong: labor, pension, criminal sentencing, family, banking, FGTS, and monetary correction are all represented. Minor gaps exist—such as no OCR extraction for FGTS statements and no standalone interest-only calculation—but the core calculation workflows are not dead-ended.