Saldo disponível da Conta PJ AGORA (valor instantâneo em BRL, direto da API, sem cache nem último-valor).
Retorna { amount } por conta. Use para relatórios de saldo em tempo real.
Opcional: accounts — agrega N empresas em paralelo (accounts[] + errors[]).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| accounts | No |
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?
Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description adds that the value is instant, no cache, and returns {amount} per account. It also explains optional aggregation behavior, enhancing transparency.
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 very concise with three short sentences, each adding essential information: purpose, usage, and optional parameter behavior. No fluff.
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's low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers all needed context: real-time balance, per-account return, and optional aggregation. No missing 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?
The input schema has one optional parameter (accounts) with no description. The description explains it aggregates multiple companies in parallel and returns accounts[] and errors[], adding critical meaning beyond the schema.
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 returns the available balance in real-time, specifying it's 'direto da API, sem cache nem último-valor'. It explicitly says 'Use para relatórios de saldo em tempo real', distinguishing it from sibling tools like statements or summaries.
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 says to use for real-time balance reports, providing clear context. It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but its focus on balance makes it distinct from siblings.
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.
Almost all tools have clear purposes, especially with the contasimples_ prefix. Some overlap between statement and summary, but descriptions differentiate well. The general tools (marketplace, report_bug, etc.) are completely different from the financial ones, which reduces potential confusion.
The domain tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., contasimples_card_write_block). However, the inclusion of general tools like authenticate, connect, marketplace breaks the pattern. This inconsistency lowers the score.
With 24 tools covering authentication, financial operations, and platform utilities, the number is reasonable for a moderately complex MCP server. It doesn't feel excessive or too thin.
The toolset covers key financial operations (balance, bills, cards, statements, summary) and some mutations (block/unblock, create invite, delete user). However, missing CRUD for several entities (e.g., no update user, no create card, no delete invite) leaves gaps. The presence of platform utilities adds breadth but not depth.