Atualiza o valor de um orçamento existente. amount = 0 remove o orçamento.
Bulk support: accepts budget_ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| amount | Yes | ||
| budget_id | Yes | ||
| budget_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?
The description states 'amount = 0 remove o orçamento', which is a destructive side effect, yet the annotation block declares destructiveHint=false. This direct contradiction means the agent cannot trust either the description or the annotation, so the transparency score must be minimal.
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 two tight sentences with no filler: the first states the core operation, the second front-lods the destructive special case and bulk support. It is eminently scannable.
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 core operation, the zero-removal edge case, and batch mode, which is enough for a simple invocation. But it does not explain the budget_id/budget_ids interaction, what the tool returns, or potential validation/error behavior, and there is no output schema to fill those 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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds useful meaning to amount (zero removes the budget) and budget_ids (bulk batch mode). However, it leaves the required budget_id parameter semantically unexplained and does not clarify how budget_ids relates to budget_id, leaving an important invocation ambiguity.
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 the operation with a specific verb and resource: 'Atualiza o valor de um orçamento existente'. It also distinguishes the tool from create/delete/list budget siblings by describing the existing-budget update focus and the special zero-removal behavior.
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 'orçamento existente' clearly scopes usage to existing budgets, and the bulk-support line explicitly indicates when to use budget_ids for batched execution. It does not name alternative sibling tools, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it over budget creation/deletion tools.
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.