Revisional de contrato bancário: recalcula o financiamento pela taxa média de mercado do BACEN (busca ao vivo por modalidade+mês) e apura o excedente por parcela (Price ou SAC). A taxa média é referência, não teto (STJ).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sistema | No | ||
| modalidade | No | ||
| num_parcelas | Yes | ||
| parcela_paga | Yes | ||
| data_contrato | No | ||
| taxa_bacen_am | No | ||
| valor_financiado | Yes | ||
| taxa_contratada_am | Yes |
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 the annotations (readOnly, idempotent), the description discloses that the tool performs a live BACEN rate lookup by modalidade+mês and that the average rate is only a reference, not a cap per STJ. These are useful behavioral nuances that could affect expected results.
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?
Two dense, front-loaded sentences with no fluff. The main purpose and method come first, and the legal caveat is added as a concise final sentence.
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 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core calculation and a key legal nuance but does not describe return values, output format, error conditions, or the role of optional parameters. It is adequate for selection but not fully complete for invocation.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It gives contextual meaning to modalidade, month, Price/SAC, and the surplus-per-installment idea, but it does not explicitly explain each parameter such as taxa_bacen_am or data_contrato. It partially compensates but leaves gaps.
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 names a specific verb ('recalcula'), a specific resource (financiamento bancário), and a concrete calculation method (taxa média BACEN, excedente por parcela Price/SAC). This clearly differentiates it from sibling calculo_* tools by domain and algorithm.
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 phrase 'Revisional de contrato bancário' establishes a clear context for when the tool applies, and the BACEN/Prize/SAC details help an agent select it among many siblings. It does not list explicit exclusions or alternative tools, but the intended use is readily apparent.
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.
The calculo_* tools are largely distinct by legal domain, but several share the same underlying correction/juros mechanics (e.g., calculo_atualizar, calculo_aluguel, calculo_pensao, calculo_trabalhista). Platform tools add further boundary confusion: marketplace includes report_bug, list_tools, and auth-related functionality that overlaps with the standalone report_bug, toolkit_info, and connect tools.
The 16 calculation tools follow a consistent calculo_<domain> pattern, which is good. However, the remaining tools mix bare verbs (authenticate, connect), nouns (marketplace), and verb_noun phrases (report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info), creating two distinct naming conventions within the same server.
At 22 tools, the set is on the heavy side of the borderline range. The domain calculators are individually justified, but adding six platform-level tools — including the very broad marketplace tool — makes the overall surface feel bloated for a server whose apparent purpose is judicial liquidation calculation.
The calculation tools cover a wide range of judicial liquidation scenarios: general debt updating, rent, alimony, labor, FGTS, bank contract revision, INSS restitution, RMC/RCC, criminal sentencing, prisoner progression, pension RMI, contribution time, and asset division. Minor gaps exist — such as a dedicated standalone honorários calculator or a more explicit precatório/RPV tool — but calculo_atualizar largely covers general monetary updating.