RMI — Renda Mensal Inicial (pós-reforma EC 103/2019): média dos salários de contribuição × coeficiente (60% + 2% por ano acima de 20H/15M), com piso (salário mínimo) e teto (INSS).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sexo | Yes | ||
| teto_inss | No | ||
| media_salarios | Yes | ||
| salario_minimo | No | ||
| tempo_contribuicao_anos | 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 establish that the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by explaining how the coefficient is computed and that the result is bounded by the minimum wage and INSS ceiling. It does not disclose rounding or default behavior, but the core calculation behavior is transparent.
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 a single dense sentence with no filler. The subject is front-loaded, and every part contributes calculation context: the formula, the coefficient rule, and the floor/ceiling bounds.
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?
For a deterministic calculation tool with no output schema, the description provides enough context to understand what is computed and how. The main gap is that behavior when optional parameters like teto_inss or salario_minimo are omitted is not explained, and output format/rounding is not stated; these are moderate but not fatal omissions.
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 carries the parameter-semantics burden. It maps media_salarios to average contribution salaries, tempo_contribuicao_anos to the coefficient's yearly increments, sexo to the 20H/15M threshold, and salario_minimo/teto_inss to floor and ceiling. It does not state default values or currency units for the optional parameters, but it adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.
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 identifies the tool as computing the RMI (Renda Mensal Inicial) and provides the exact post-reform formula: average contribution salaries multiplied by a coefficient, with floor and ceiling. This is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling calculation tools such as calculo_pensao or calculo_tempo_contribuicao.
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 is implied by the tool name and the formula: it is for calculating RMI under EC 103/2019. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or when-not-to-use scenarios.
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.