Consulta de índice oficial: fator de correção acumulado entre duas datas (mês inicial excluído, mês final incluído — convenção BACEN/IBGE). Se valor informado, retorna o valor corrigido; se incluir_valores true, retorna as variações mensais publicadas (puxar os índices crus).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| valor | No | ||
| indice | Yes | ||
| pro_rata | No | ||
| data_final | No | ||
| data_inicial | Yes | ||
| incluir_valores | 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 declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond that: the BACEN/IBGE month convention, conditional behavior based on 'valor', and the monthly-variation mode when 'incluir_valores' is true. Minor missing behaviors like 'pro_rata' handling prevent a higher score.
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 with the main purpose, followed by the conditional behavior in a single second sentence. The informal 'puxar os índices crus' is slightly redundant but does not add meaningful bloat. It earns its place overall.
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?
With 6 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description carries a heavy burden. It covers the main calculation, date convention, and output-mode switches, but leaves 'pro_rata' unexplained and does not describe expected return structures. It is adequate for basic invocation but has clear gaps for full autonomous use.
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 'valor', 'incluir_valores', the date pair, and implicitly 'indice', but 'pro_rata' is left entirely undefined, and no date format or enum value semantics are provided. This is partial compensation, not complete.
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 opens with a specific verb and object: 'Consulta de índice oficial', and precisely defines the computation as the accumulated correction factor between two dates. It clearly differentiates this tool from the many calculo_* siblings by focusing on official index correction rather than aluguel, fgts, trabalhista, etc.
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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: whenever a correction factor or corrected value based on an official index between two dates is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, but the use case is specific enough to guide selection among the sibling 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 calculo_* tools are separated by legal scenario, but several overlap in the generic task of correcting overdue amounts with indices and interest (calculo_atualizar, calculo_aluguel, calculo_pensao, calculo_fgts, calculo_restituicao_inss, calculo_rmc_rcc). Platform tools also overlap: connect and toolkit_info both report connection status, so an agent could easily misselect for a generic monetary-correction request.
The calculation tools follow a strong calculo_<area> pattern and platform tools use simple English verbs, with consistent snake_case throughout. The main inconsistency is the mix between Portuguese calculation names and English platform verbs, plus grammatical variation such as calculo_atualizar versus calculo_indice versus calculo_salario_minimo.
22 tools is already on the heavy side, but the bigger issue is scope: the server is named 'Revisão de Contrato Bancário' yet only a few tools are actually banking-contract related. Most calculators target unrelated legal domains like criminal sentencing, divorce, labor, FGTS, INSS, and the marketplace/admin tools add further unrelated surface area.
For a banking-contract-review server, the set lacks obvious companions such as tariff/fee analysis, detailed financing scenario comparison, insurance/consignment breakdowns, or full settlement-planning support. The many unrelated calculators do not fill the gaps in the core banking domain.