Relatório de entradas vs saídas (receitas vs despesas) por período, em modo cashflow. Use account_id para filtrar uma conta. Padrão: mês atual. Base caixa por conta — exclui compras individuais de cartão (só pagamentos de fatura).
Bulk support: accepts account_ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end_date | No | ||
| account_id | No | ||
| start_date | No | ||
| account_ids | No | ||
| periodicity | 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 significant behavioral detail beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: it is cash-basis per account, excludes individual card purchases (only invoice payments), defaults to the current month, and supports batched execution. These are non-obvious nuances that materially affect how an agent interprets 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?
The description is compact, with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by the key cash-basis limitation and bulk support note. Every sentence adds useful information and there is no filler or repetition of structured metadata.
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?
The description covers the essential operational details: purpose, account filtering, default period, cash-basis behavior, and batch support. However, there is no output schema and the description does not describe the report's return format or the valid values for periodicity, which are meaningful gaps for a tool with five optional parameters.
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 carry parameter documentation. It explains account_id and account_ids well, and indirectly covers start_date/end_date via 'período' and 'mês atual', but it leaves periodicity and the exact date format unspecified. It partially compensates for the schema gap but not completely.
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 it is a report of income vs expenses (entradas vs saídas) by period in cashflow mode, which names a specific verb and resource. It is clear and distinguishable from sibling report tools by its cash-basis focus, though it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling tool.
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 gives useful parameter-level guidance: use account_id to filter one account, defaults to the current month, and supports account_ids for batch execution. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternative report tools or when not to use it, so the usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.