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?
The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations by disclosing the live BACEN lookup by modality+month and the legal caveat that the average rate is a reference, not a ceiling (STJ). The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description does not contradict them.
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 dense sentences carry the core domain, calculation logic, and a legal nuance with no filler. The most important disambiguating phrase ('Revisional de contrato bancário') is front-loaded.
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 covers the core calculation and the output concept ('excedente por parcela'), and annotations cover safety. But with 8 parameters, 0% schema descriptions, and no output schema, it leaves the agent to infer exact return shape, optional parameter behavior, and parameter-level semantics.
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 partially does by linking modalidade+mês to the live rate lookup and Price/SAC to the payment system, and by implying parcela_paga relates to the excess calculation. However, it does not clarify units, optional parameters like taxa_bacen_am, data_contrato's role, or defaults for sistema.
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 uses a specific verb ('recalcula') and resource ('financiamento') and clearly identifies the domain as 'Revisional de contrato bancário'. It also names the BACEN average-rate recalculation and per-installment excess computation, which set it apart from sibling calculation tools.
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' gives clear context for when to use this tool, and the mention of Price/SAC systems and BACEN live lookup helps disambiguate from other calculo_* siblings. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the domain context is strong.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.