rede_extrato
Read-onlyIdempotent
Extrato de recebimentos/depósitos da conta Rede no período (o que foi creditado por dia, por conta bancária).
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| size | No | ||
| end_date | No | ||
| start_date | No |
Rede
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Changed1 schema field changed
- added
Input schema / properties / sizeAdded value: +{ + "type": "number" +}
- First observed
TDQS
B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as pagination, authentication requirements, or return format specifics. It only reiterates the content of the statement, which is more about functionality than behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. There is no filler, and the key information (what the statement contains) is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema and zero parameter coverage, the description is insufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool. It does not clarify the meaning of 'size', the required date format, or whether the parameters are mandatory. The tool's role among siblings could also be spelled out more explicitly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It mentions a period (implying start_date and end_date) and grouping by bank account, but it does not explain the 'size' parameter or the expected date format. Thus it partially compensates for the missing parameter details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it provides a statement of receipts/deposits for the Rede account within a period, grouped by day and bank account. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like rede_cobrancas (charges) and rede_conta (account), making its purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving deposit statements, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rede_cobrancas or rede_conta. No exclusions or alternative suggestions are provided, leaving the agent to infer context from the name and sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes: the rede_* tools cover specific financial data (charges, account, extract, receivables, sales), while authenticate/connect/toolkit_info handle authentication/status with some overlap but distinct focuses. The marketplace tool is a multi-action mega-tool, but its description clearly delineates between search, describe, invoke, install, and subscription actions, reducing ambiguity.
Naming Consistency2/5
Naming is inconsistent: some tools use English verbs (authenticate, connect, report_bug), others use Portuguese nouns (rede_cobrancas, rede_conta, rede_extrato), and two use a mix of noun and verb (rede_vendas_listar, rede_vendas_resumo). The rede_* prefix provides some consistency, but the overall pattern lacks a uniform verb_noun structure, making it harder to predict tool names.
Tool Count4/5
With 12 tools, the count is reasonable for a platform that combines toolkit management and Rede-specific financial queries. The marketplace tool consolidates many actions into one, which keeps the count manageable. Slightly fewer tools might be cleaner, but it's not excessive given the breadth of functionality.
Completeness4/5
The server covers the essential lifecycle for both toolkit management (search, describe, invoke, install, subscribe, cancel) and Rede financial data (list sales, summary, charges, account, extract, receivables). Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit logout or disconnect tool, and the marketplace bundles many actions that could be split, but the overall surface is comprehensive for its intended use.