CVM: Participante, consulta em fonte oficial. Hospedado pela plataforma, sem credenciais da plataforma, pague por consulta com crédito pré-pago. Consulta informação de fontes e órgãos oficiais brasileiros (a mesma disponível ao cidadão), não é dado sigiloso. O cliente é o controlador dos dados e responde pela finalidade legítima (LGPD).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cpf | No | ||
| cnpj | No | ||
| name | 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?
Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds useful details about authentication (no platform credentials), payment (prepaid credit), and data responsibility (client as controller under LGPD), which go beyond the annotations and clarify operational and legal implications.
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 a single paragraph with some redundancy (e.g., 'fonte oficial' mentioned twice) and includes legal boilerplate. It is not overly long but could be more streamlined and to the point.
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?
There is no output schema, and the description does not state what the tool returns or how to use the input parameters. It only mentions that it queries information, leaving the expected result and usage context incomplete.
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 schema lists three parameters (cpf, cnpj, name) but provides no descriptions. The description does not mention or explain any of these parameters, leaving their purpose and usage completely unspecified. This is a significant gap for effective invocation.
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 that it is a query for CVM participant information from an official source, distinguishing it from unrelated siblings like authenticate or marketplace. It is specific enough to understand the tool's core function.
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 provides context about the official source, lack of platform credentials, and prepaid credit usage, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. Since siblings are unrelated, the lack of explicit differentiation is less critical, but the guidance is implicit rather than direct.
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.