Lista fechamentos de caixa por período. Entradas, saídas, fundo de caixa, vendas líquidas/do dia, saldo.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| loja | Yes | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| account | No | ||
| situacao | No | ||
| data_final | No | ||
| data_inicial | No | ||
| numero_caixa | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds the list of returned fields (entradas, saídas, etc.), which is useful. However, it does not disclose any behavioral aspects beyond what annotations already state, such as pagination behavior or required parameters like the store (loja).
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 extremely concise, consisting of a single, front-loaded sentence. It avoids redundancy and directly states the tool's function.
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?
Despite the concise purpose, the description is insufficient for a tool with 8 parameters and no output schema. It does not explain how filters work, what output format to expect, or how pagination is handled, leaving users with too many unknowns.
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?
The description only hints at 'por período' (by period), implying the date parameters, but it does not explain the purpose of 'loja', 'page', 'limit', 'account', 'situacao', or 'numero_caixa'. With 8 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description fails to provide necessary semantic context.
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 it lists cash register closings by period for a store, specifying the fields included (entries, exits, cash fund, net sales, balance). It is specific about the resource and scope, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like cigam_fluxo_caixa.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus other cash-related tools, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., authentication) or context where it's appropriate. It only describes what it does, not when to choose it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.