Atualiza um cartão de crédito (nome, bandeira, dias de fatura, limite, arquivar). Cartões automáticos só permitem nome e archived. Prefira NOME (não invente id).
Bulk support: accepts payment_account_ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| flag | No | ||
| name | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| archived | No | ||
| credit_card | Yes | ||
| billing_due_day | No | ||
| billing_cycle_day | No | ||
| payment_account_id | No | ||
| payment_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?
Beyond the annotations, it discloses that automatic cards accept only name and archived, that bulk execution is possible, and that identification should use an existing name rather than an id. It does not describe return values or persistence effects beyond arquivar, but adds meaningful behavioral context.
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, front-loaded with purpose and field list, followed by two high-value constraints. Every sentence carries useful information, with no filler.
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 is usable for a straightforward single-card update and communicates key constraints and bulk behavior. But with 9 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, it leaves some per-field semantics and the bulk parameter visibility unresolved.
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 maps several fields: nome→name, bandeira→flag, limite→limit, arquivar→archived, dias de fatura→billing days. It also clarifies credit_card selection. However, payment_account_ids is mentioned but not present in the displayed schema, and billing_due_day vs billing_cycle_day is not disambiguated.
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 uses a specific verb plus resource: 'Atualiza um cartão de crédito' and enumerates the updatable fields (nome, bandeira, dias de fatura, limite, arquivar). This clearly distinguishes it from create/list/delete credit-card siblings.
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?
It gives concrete invocation guidance: 'Cartões automáticos só permitem nome e archived' and 'Prefira NOME (não invente id)', and notes bulk support via payment_account_ids. It does not explicitly contrast with create/delete alternatives, but the update context is clear.
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.