Mix de formas de recebimento de uma loja por período: total recebido por forma de pagamento, por bandeira de cartão e por adquirente (maquininha). Janela máxima de 60 dias.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| loja | No | ||
| account | No | ||
| data_final | No | ||
| data_inicial | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description doesn't add any behavioral context beyond that. It doesn't mention that it supports a maximum 60-day window in the description (actually it does mention 'Janela máxima de 60 dias' explicitly), so that's a bonus. However, it misses other behaviors like authentication requirements or rate limits. Since annotations already cover safety, the score is adequate but not high.
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 concise, one sentence, front-loaded with purpose. It efficiently conveys the main functionality and includes the key constraint of 60-day window.
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?
Given the tool returns payment mix data, the description provides basic info but lacks details about return structure (though no output schema exists). It also doesn't clarify filter parameters like account. The 60-day window is a positive, but overall it's a minimal viable description.
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 mentions 'período' which implies date parameters, and 'loja' but doesn't explain the 'account' parameter or the format of the dates. It adds some context but not enough to fully document all 4 parameters.
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 provides a mix of payment forms received by a store over a period, broken down by payment method, card brand, and acquirer. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like cigam_vendas or cigam_fluxo_caixa, which likely have different focuses.
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?
It implies usage for payment mix analysis by period, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this instead of other sales or cash flow tools. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.