DESPESAS recebidas por uma empresa ou pessoa (CPF/CNPJ) do Governo Federal num período: 'quanto a empresa recebeu da União'. Soma os recursos recebidos e quebra por órgão pagador e por mês. IMPORTANTE: cobre só o Executivo FEDERAL, não inclui estados nem municípios (cada ente tem portal próprio). Sem datas, usa os últimos 12 meses.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cpf_cnpj | Yes | ||
| mes_ano_fim | No | ||
| mes_ano_inicio | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it sums received resources, breaks down by payer and month, and defaults to the last 12 months if no dates are provided. No contradictions with 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 paragraph with no wasted words. It front-loads the main purpose, then adds scope and default behavior efficiently. Every sentence adds distinct value.
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 read-only query tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description provides complete guidance: it explains the output structure (summed by payer and month), the default time range, and the federal scope. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions CPF/CNPJ and optional dates, and explains default date behavior. However, it does not specify the required format for CPF/CNPJ (e.g., digits only) or date formats (e.g., YYYY-MM), leaving some ambiguity for the agent.
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 retrieves total expenses received by a person or company from the Federal Government, broken down by paying body and month. It distinguishes itself by focusing on aggregated amounts and explicitly ruling out state/municipal coverage, making its purpose unambiguous.
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 explains when to use (for Federal Executive expenses) and notes default behavior (last 12 months without dates). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare with sibling tools like transparencia_despesas_documentos, missing an opportunity to guide selection.
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.
There is substantial overlap among the process-discovery tools: cnpj_processos, cpf_processos, djen_processos_por_parte, processos_buscar_por_nome, processos_buscar_por_documento, and legal_dossie all lead to finding the same kind of case by party/document, differing mainly by backend and sync/async details. The verbose descriptions mitigate the confusion, but an agent still has to reason through several competing entry points with unclear boundaries.
The set uses domain prefixes and snake_case, but mixes English and Portuguese action verbs (djen_search_comunicacoes vs. djen_processos_por_parte; processos_get_resultado vs. processos_buscar_por_nome) and includes bare-noun names like cnpj_processos, legal_dossie, and transparencia_pep. Platform/utility tools (connect, marketplace, show_version) use a different English naming style, so no single pattern is followed.
30 exposed tools exceeds the scale's heavy threshold and the count is inflated by platform/admin/marketplace meta-tools as well as multiple near-redundant discovery backends. A more scoped legal server could merge the process-finding variants and keep the utility/marketplace features separate.
The server covers a lot of ground—company/CPF data, DJEN and portal discovery, jurisprudence full text, monitoring, transparency, PEP, and sanctions—but there is no native current-case-status/movimentaçoes tool, and the descriptions repeatedly tell agents to enrich with datajud_* tools that are not exposed directly in this list. That is a significant workflow gap for a tool advertised as an alternative to Jusbrasil.