Resumo financeiro do período (receitas, despesas, comparação, maiores gastos). Totais em base caixa; maiores gastos em base por lançamento (incluem cartão) — não somam com os totais.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| year | No | ||
| month | No | ||
| end_date | No | ||
| start_date | 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?
The description adds meaningful behavioral nuance beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by explaining that totals use cash basis while top expenses use per-transaction basis and include credit card entries, warning that they do not sum consistently. This helps the agent interpret returned numbers correctly.
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 compact sentences deliver the essential purpose and a critical data caveat with no filler. The main content is front-loaded and every clause adds 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?
There is no output schema, so the description should clarify return shape and period semantics, but it only lists high-level components. The missing parameter guidance and lack of differentiation from siblings leave an agent under-equipped to invoke the tool correctly for a specific period request.
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 for the four undocumented parameters. It only mentions 'período' generically and does not explain how year/month or start_date/end_date should be used, which formats are expected, or whether they are alternative or complementary ways to define the period.
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 the tool provides a financial summary for a period, including revenues, expenses, comparison, and top spending. This gives a specific resource and scope, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar sibling report tools like get_income_vs_expenses or get_monthly_overview.
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 'do período' implies the tool is used when a consolidated financial summary for a time range is needed. However, it offers no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over the many other get_* report siblings, and no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
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.