Lista transferências entre contas com paginação (page/per_page). Datas em YYYY-MM-DD.
Bulk support: accepts account_ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| end_date | No | ||
| per_page | No | ||
| account_id | No | ||
| start_date | No | ||
| account_ids | 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?
Annotations already provide readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive hints. The description adds value by disclosing pagination behavior, date format, and batch execution via account_ids, which annotations do not convey. It does not contradict the 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?
Three short, front-loaded sentences cover purpose, pagination, date format, and bulk support with no filler. Every sentence earns its place.
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 simple read-only list operation with no required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation details: pagination, date format, and bulk filtering. Minor gaps remain around the singular account_id filter and response shape, but these do not prevent correct selection or 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 carry parameter meaning. It clarifies page/per_page as pagination, date strings as YYYY-MM-DD, and account_ids as a bulk batched input, but it leaves account_id, start_date, and end_date semantics partly to inference and does not explain defaults or mutual exclusivity.
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 states a specific action ('Lista transferências entre contas') and resource (transfers between accounts), with pagination detail. It is clear but does not explicitly name or differentiate sibling listing tools such as organizze_list_transactions, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.
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 usage context is implied: use this tool when listing transfers between accounts, with page/per_page and date filters. It gives practical details (bulk account_ids, date format) but does not state when to prefer this over alternatives like organizze_list_transactions or organizze_create_transfer, nor any exclusions.
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.