Superendividamento (Lei 14.181/2021): % da renda comprometida, mínimo existencial (R$600, parametrizável), renda disponível e capacidade de pagamento de um plano de até 5 anos.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dividas | Yes | ||
| prazo_meses | No | ||
| renda_liquida | Yes | ||
| minimo_existencial | 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 read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the computational scope, including the parameterizable existential minimum (R$600 default) and the 5-year plan horizon. This is useful context but does not disclose side effects, error behavior, or dependencies beyond what annotations imply. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
A single dense sentence that front-loads the legal framework and then lists the computed metrics. There is no filler; every phrase adds meaning, and the information is organized for quick scanning.
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?
Since there is no output schema, the description's listing of output metrics is valuable. Yet it does not specify the return format or clarify how the required inputs renda_liquida and dividas relate to the calculation. It provides sufficient domain context but leaves operational details such as units and precise input expectations to inference.
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 burden of explaining parameters. It partially does: it explains minimo_existencial is parameterizable with an R$600 default and implies prazo_meses corresponds to a plan of up to 5 years. However, it does not describe renda_liquida or the structure and meaning of dividas, leaving important gaps.
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 legal domain (Lei 14.181/2021) and enumerates the calculation outputs: percentage of income committed, existential minimum, available income, and payment capacity over up to 5 years. This clearly identifies what the tool does even without an explicit verb. It is also easily distinguishable from sibling calculo_* tools because of the superendividamento subject matter.
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 legal context implies the tool is for over-indebtedness analysis, giving an agent a reasonable idea of when to use it. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to select this tool over sibling calculation tools, nor any exclusions or mention of alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.