RMC/RCC — reserva de margem consignável de cartão (INSS, códigos 217/268): limites de 5% e restituição corrigida dos descontos. Tese: cartão rotativo vendido como consignado que nunca amortiza.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tipo | No | ||
| indice | No | ||
| descontos | Yes | ||
| data_calculo | No | ||
| beneficio_mensal | Yes |
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 cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds useful domain context about the 5% limit and corrected restitution, but it does not disclose what the tool returns, how the 'nunca amortiza' thesis is applied, or any edge-case behavior.
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 tool's subject and the core calculation basis. The 'Tese' clause is somewhat extra but short and provides useful legal rationale, so the overall structure earns its place.
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 five parameters, two enums, and no output schema, the description leaves too much unspecified: no parameter guidance, no return behavior, and no routing against sibling tools. It is closer to a labeled legal-thesis summary than to a self-sufficient invocation guide.
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%, and the description does not explain beneficio_mensal, indice, data_calculo, or the structure of descontos. Only the broad idea of discounts and the RMC/RCC enum values are inferable, which is not enough to compensate for the total lack of schema-level parameter documentation.
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 names the specific domain (RMC/RCC, INSS codes 217/268) and indicates the substantive focus: 5% limits and corrected restitution of discounts. It lacks a direct verb like 'calculates' or 'returns', and the 'Tese' clause reads more like legal context than a tool behavior, so it falls short of a 5.
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 intended use case is implied by naming RMC/RCC and the INSS consigned-card context, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. With many sibling calculo_* tools, the description expects the agent to infer this tool's niche rather than stating it clearly.
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.