Resumo financeiro agregado do período (total de pedidos, faturamento, ticket médio, série diária), pronto para gráfico.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end_date | No | ||
| start_date | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds valuable context about the returned data (orders, revenue, ticket, daily series) and its chart-readiness, going beyond the 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 a single sentence with no unnecessary words, front-loading the core purpose and immediately providing the key content. It is concise and effective for an agent to scan.
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?
Without an output schema, the description lists the return fields (total orders, revenue, ticket médio, daily series) and states the chart-ready aspect, covering the main functional expectations. It lacks details like date format or response structure, but for a low-complexity tool this is mostly sufficient.
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 has zero description coverage (0%), and the description only mentions 'período' without explicitly mapping to start_date/end_date or explaining their format. This gives a conceptual hint that the dates define the range, but it partially compensates at best.
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 'Resumo financeiro agregado do período' clearly defines the tool as an aggregated financial summary for a period, listing specific contents (total orders, revenue, average ticket, daily series). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pedidos_listar or repasses by focusing on the summary level.
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 implies use when an aggregated financial overview is needed, and 'pronto para gráfico' suggests a charting use case. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, leaving some room for ambiguity with other financial tools.
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.
Each iFood-specific tool targets a distinct resource (catalog, availability, financial summary, store, order detail, order list, transactions). The generic platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.) are also distinct. The only slight overlap is between connect and authenticate, but their descriptions clearly separate connection status from token-based login.
Names are all snake_case but follow mixed patterns. The iFood tools use a consistent 'ifood_vendas_' prefix followed by nouns or noun phrases (cardapio, disponibilidade, financeiro_resumo, pedido_detalhe). Platform tools use imperative verbs (authenticate, connect, report_bug) or descriptive names (toolkit_info). No uniform verb_noun convention exists across the set.
13 tools is within a reasonable range, but 6 of them (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) are generic platform utilities unrelated to iFood. This makes the server feel like a mixed bag rather than a focused iFood integration, reducing appropriateness for the server's stated purpose.
The iFood tools cover read-only workflows: catalog, availability, financial summary, store data, order listing, order detail, and financial transactions. However, there are no write operations (e.g., update menu, cancel order) and no search/filter capabilities beyond basic period-based listing. Core read operations are covered, but the surface is incomplete for full lifecycle management.