Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
normas-psav

normas-psav

by BrunooMoniz
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

buscar

Searches Brazilian BCB, CMN, and CVM regulations on virtual asset service providers, returning relevant articles with current status and official sources.

Instructions

Busca nas normas do BCB, do CMN e da CVM sobre PSAV e ativos virtuais e devolve os artigos mais relevantes.

Cada resultado traz a norma, o artigo, a situação de vigência (vigente, alterada por, REVOGADA por), a fonte oficial e o texto do artigo. A busca é por palavras: use os termos da regulação ("prestadora de serviços de ativos virtuais", "capital mínimo", "segregação patrimonial") e refaça com outras palavras se o resultado não servir.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "consulta": "<consulta>"
    },
    "name": "buscar"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limiteNo
consultaYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations supplied, the description has to carry the full load, and it discloses that matching is keyword-based rather than semantic, that results are ranked by relevance, and that each hit carries a vigência status qualified as 'alterada por' or 'REVOGADA por'. That status vocabulary is meaningful behavioral context an agent could not infer otherwise. It omits the default result cap of 8 and any truncation behaviour, which keeps it below 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose and scope come first, followed by the result contract and then the query advice, so the agent reads what it needs in order. The second paragraph listing every result field is somewhat enumerative but still earns its place as a compact return contract.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so the description need not re-specify return fields in depth, and its focus on search mechanics and vigência semantics fills the gap left by zero schema descriptions and zero annotations. The remaining shortfall is the unexplained 'limite' parameter and the absence of explicit routing against the sibling tools.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain the 'consulta' parameter as a free-keyword string rather than a natural-language question, which is genuinely useful, but it says nothing about 'limite' or its default of 8, leaving one of two parameters undocumented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource (search the BCB/CMN/CVM norms on PSAV and virtual assets) and specifies the output unit (the most relevant articles). It is clear enough that an agent can distinguish it from a norm-lookup or overview sibling, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with 'norma' or 'panorama', so a 5 is not warranted.

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?

It gives real query-formulation guidance: use regulatory vocabulary such as 'prestadora de serviços de ativos virtuais', 'capital mínimo', 'segregação patrimonial', and retry with other words if results are poor. What it does not do is say when to choose this tool over the sibling 'norma' or 'panorama' tools, so selection guidance remains implied.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools