Lista lançamentos financeiros por período. Competência, plano de contas, histórico, valor, forma de pagamento, tipo (débito/crédito).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| loja | Yes | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| account | No | ||
| tipo_data | No | ||
| data_final | No | ||
| tipo_conta | No | ||
| data_inicial | No | ||
| cod_plano_contas | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds period scoping and lists the returned field types, but it does not disclose pagination behavior or any prerequisites, thus providing only marginal added value beyond annotations.
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 short sentences, front-loads the main purpose, and avoids fluff. It is appropriately concise for the information it conveys.
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 9 parameters, no output schema, and many siblings, the description is incomplete. It names several output fields but leaves parameter behaviors, pagination, and filtering logic unaddressed, making it hard to invoke correctly without further documentation.
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 across 9 parameters, the description was expected to compensate but does not. It vaguely references 'period' and 'chart of accounts', but gives no explanation for required 'loja', pagination parameters, or filter semantics. The agent cannot determine how to set most parameters correctly.
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 the tool lists financial transactions by period and enumerates key fields, using a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like cigam_fluxo_caixa or cigam_caixa, but the resource type is sufficiently specific.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools (e.g., cigam_contas_pagar, cigam_fluxo_caixa). The description merely states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.