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=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it performs a 'busca ao vivo' by modalidade+mês, and emphasizes that the BACEN average rate is 'referência, não teto (STJ)', which is an important legal-behavioral nuance.
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 tight sentences with no filler. It front-loads the tool's purpose and operation, then adds 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?
For a tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It explains the method conceptually but leaves out parameter semantics, output shape, and edge-case guidance. The legal caveat and live-lookup note are valuable, but they do not fully compensate for missing operational 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden, but it only partially maps concepts to parameters. It mentions modalidade, mês, Price/SAC, and excess per installment, but does not explain optional parameters like taxa_bacen_am or data_contrato, nor provide formats or units for required fields such as taxa_contratada_am and parcela_paga.
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 identifies the tool's specific purpose: 'Revisional de contrato bancário' and states the exact operations: 'recalcula o financiamento pela taxa média de mercado do BACEN' and 'apura o excedente por parcela (Price ou SAC)'. This is more specific than the generic sibling names like calculo_fgts or calculo_aluguel, so an agent can distinguish it.
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 gives a clear context for use: bank loan revision calculations using BACEN average rates and Price/SAC systems. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but among the sibling tools, none clearly overlap with this specific bank-contract revision scenario.
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 each target a distinct legal area (labor, FGTS, alimony, sentencing, INSS, etc.), and detailed descriptions clarify their boundaries. Some relationship exists among correction/index-based calculators, but the legal context makes them distinguishable. The platform tools are also separate from the domain calculators, though marketplace is broad.
All 16 calculation tools follow a consistent `calculo_<area>` snake_case pattern, which is good. However, the six platform/admin tools use a different style and language (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info), creating a clear split between the two clusters.
At 22 tools, the set is on the heavy end. The 16 legal calculators each earn their place for a broad Brazilian legal-calculation suite, but the additional platform and marketplace plumbing tools inflate the count and make the server feel less focused.
The tool surface covers a wide range of Brazilian legal calculation needs: labor, FGTS, criminal sentencing, prison progression, INSS benefits, alimony, divorce, banking revisions, and monetary correction. Minor gaps exist, such as dedicated overtime or additional-hours calculators, but the core workflows are well covered with no obvious dead ends.