Pensão alimentícia em atraso (art. 528 CPC): por mês do período calcula o devido (% do salário mínimo do mês, valor fixo ou % da remuneração), subtrai pagamentos e aplica correção (INPC) + juros 1% a.m. desde cada vencimento.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| forma | Yes | ||
| juros | No | ||
| indice | No | ||
| fim_atraso | Yes | ||
| pagamentos | No | ||
| referencia | Yes | ||
| data_calculo | No | ||
| remuneracoes | No | ||
| inicio_atraso | 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?
The description discloses the full calculation flow: monthly amount by mode, subtraction of payments, INPC correction, and 1% monthly interest from each due date. This adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations, though it does not mention that the index or interest rate can be customized via the optional indice/juros parameters.
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?
One information-dense sentence with no filler or repetition. The subject and legal article are front-loaded, followed by the calculation steps in a compact, readable sequence.
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 description is adequate for a read-only calculator with safety annotations, but it does not describe the output format and leaves 'data_calculo' unexplained. Since there is no output schema, the agent still has a clear gap in knowing what the tool returns.
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 carries the burden, and it does: it explains the three 'forma' modes, payments, remuneration percentages, correction index, and interest. It leaves 'referencia' and 'data_calculo' somewhat implicit, but an agent can infer their roles from the described formula.
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 names the exact resource ('Pensão alimentícia em atraso') and legal basis (art. 528 CPC), then states the specific computation performed. This makes it immediately distinguishable from the sibling calculation tools, which target other domains such as labor, FGTS, aluguel, or INSS.
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 'Pensão alimentícia em atraso' implies when the tool applies, but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over alternatives or when not to use it. The description identifies the context but does not compare it with sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.