Marca uma transação como paga/recebida (paid=true) ou não paga (paid=false) em conta MANUAL ("já paguei o aluguel"). Idempotente. Transações automáticas são sempre pagas.
Bulk support: accepts transaction_ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| paid | Yes | ||
| transaction_id | No | ||
| transaction_ids | No | ||
| transaction_uuid | 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 explicitly claims 'Idempotente', but the annotations set idempotentHint to false. This is a direct contradiction. The additional behavioral notes about automatic transactions and bulk support are useful, but the contradiction forces a score of 1 per the rubric.
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 and front-loaded. Each sentence earns its place: the first defines the action, the second adds idempotency and the automatic-transaction limitation, and the third covers bulk support. No filler or redundant content.
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 core behavior, manual-account scope, automatic-transaction behavior, idempotency, and bulk support. However, it leaves the identifier parameters and their relationship unclear, and there is no output-schema or result description to compensate. For a 4-parameter mutation tool, this is workable but has gaps.
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 does explain the paid parameter's true/false semantics and mentions transaction_ids for bulk execution, but it does not explain transaction_id, transaction_uuid, or clarify which identifier is required despite paid being the only required field.
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 and resource: marking a transaction as paid/received (paid=true) or unpaid (paid=false) on a MANUAL account. It also provides a concrete user scenario ('já paguei o aluguel') and distinguishes the tool from generic update tools by limiting it to manual transactions.
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 clearly indicates when to use the tool: for manual-account transactions only, and it notes that automatic transactions are always paid, implying the tool is not meant for those. It does not name sibling alternatives explicitly, but the context gives a clear usage boundary.
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.