Skip to main content
Glama
marlon-iac

dlp-invest-mcp

by marlon-iac
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

obter_rentabilidade_tool

Retrieve portfolio returns for a given period using portfolio ID or name and start/end dates.

Instructions

Recupera a rentabilidade da carteira em um periodo.

Args:
    carteira: ID ou nome da carteira.
    data_inicial: Data inicial no formato YYYY-MM-DD.
    data_final: Data final no formato YYYY-MM-DD.

Returns:
    Dict with ``success`` and either ``data`` or ``error``.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
carteiraNo
data_finalNo
data_inicialNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the return shape ('Dict with success and either data or error'), which signals a read operation. However, it says nothing about permissions, what happens when optional parameters are omitted, or rate limits, so significant behavioral context is still missing.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by structured Args and Returns sections. The docstring boilerplate is slightly verbose but each line carries parameter or return information, so nothing is wasted.

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 return description need not be exhaustive, and all three parameters are covered. The main gap is that the meaning of the optional/null defaults and their effect on results is left unexplained.

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

Parameters4/5

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, and it documents all three parameters with their meaning and expected formats (carteira as ID or name, dates as YYYY-MM-DD). This adds real value over the bare schema, though it doesn't explain the all-optional/null defaults.

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+resource ('Recupera a rentabilidade da carteira') scoped to a period, which is clear and distinct in resource from siblings like obter_posicao and obter_extrato. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from those siblings or clarify the relationship to the other obter_* tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no indication of when to use this tool versus the many sibling retrieval tools, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The only implicit guidance is 'em um periodo', which hints at time-bounded use but stops short of telling the agent when this is the right call.

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