Cria uma transferência entre duas contas bancárias (suporta recorrência). Prefira NOMES de conta (não invente ids). Não envolve cartões de crédito.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | Yes | ||
| done | No | ||
| tags | No | ||
| amount | Yes | ||
| recurring | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| observation | No | ||
| periodicity | No | ||
| debit_account | Yes | ||
| credit_account | 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?
Annotations only signal non-readOnly, non-idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description carries the main behavioral burden. It adds useful behavior: recurrence is supported and account parameters should be names, not IDs. But it does not disclose side effects such as balance updates, validation behavior, or response/error details.
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 three short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the main purpose and then gives two high-value usage instructions, making it easily scannable for an AI agent.
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 10-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and the account-naming convention but omits date formats, periodicity values, optional-field semantics, and any indication of the result. It is adequate for high-level selection but not fully complete for precise 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?
With 0% schema_description_coverage, the description must compensate. It clarifies the two account parameters by saying 'Prefira NOMES de conta' and hints at periodicity/recurrence semantics. However, it leaves amount, date, done, tags, observation, and periodicity values undocumented.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Cria uma transferência entre duas contas bancárias.' It also distinguishes itself from credit-card-related tools with 'Não envolve cartões de crédito' and adds recurrence scope, so an agent can clearly tell it apart from organizze_create_transaction and similar siblings.
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?
It gives clear context: use this for bank account transfers, and it explicitly excludes credit cards. It also provides a strong practical instruction to prefer account names rather than inventing IDs. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or describe when a regular transaction should be used instead of a transfer.
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.
Most tools target distinct resource+action pairs, but the reporting/query side is crowded: get_balances, transactions_list_results, get_financial_summary, get_monthly_overview, and the category/tag reports overlap heavily. Long descriptions disambiguate bases and use cases, but an agent must read carefully to avoid picking the wrong report or list variant.
Organizze tools overwhelmingly follow a consistent organizze_<verb>_<noun> snake_case pattern with create_, list_, get_, update_, and delete_ prefixes. Deviations like transactions_list_results, the mass_* versus update_transactions_* bulk variants, and unprefixed platform tools keep it from being perfect.
68 tools is far beyond the practical agent surface and includes many near-variant list/report/mass tools plus six unrelated platform-level tools. Even though the finance domain is broad, this count creates an extreme mismatch for efficient tool selection.
The core finance lifecycle is well covered: accounts, cards, categories, budgets, transactions, invoices, transfers, and reports all have substantial CRUD or equivalent support. However, some referenced operations are missing entirely, such as delete_recurrence, clear_latest_imports, and remove_from_latest_imports, and transfers/recurrences lack full lifecycle coverage.