Compare debt payoff strategies using avalanche (highest interest first) or snowball (lowest balance first) and see which plan clears your debts faster.
Calcula plano de quitação de dívidas pelo método avalanche (maior juros primeiro) ou bola de neve (menor saldo primeiro). Compara os dois.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| debts | Yes | Lista de dívidas | |
| extra_payment | No | Valor extra mensal além dos mínimos em R$ |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently says the tool computes a payoff plan, implements two named strategies, and compares them, which is meaningful for a calculator. It does not disclose the exact output shape or assumptions such as fixed rates, so one point is withheld.
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 entire description is one focused sentence that front-loads the action and object before specifying the methods. There is no repetition of schema information and no filler.
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?
The description is adequate for selecting the tool because the input schema is fully documented. However, there is no output schema and the description does not state what the returned 'plano' contains, such as a payment schedule, totals, or payoff time, leaving the agent to discover the return shape.
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 100%: debts and extra_payment are already documented, including the monthly_rate format and defaults. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is acceptable because the schema carries the burden, yielding the baseline of 3.
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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Calcula plano de quitação de dívidas') and clearly names the two methods (avalanche and snowball) plus the comparison behavior. This distinguishes it from sibling financial calculators such as calculate_financing or calculate_installment.
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 description establishes an unambiguous use case: debt payoff planning with a choice between highest-interest-first and smallest-balance-first strategies. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of a 5, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.