Metodologia dos indicadores em JSON: fórmula, contas CVM e a BASE do lucro de cada um. IMPORTANTE para comparar corretamente: margem_liquida usa lucro consolidado TOTAL; roe usa lucro dos CONTROLADORES. Gratuito.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the output is in JSON ('em JSON'), that it is free ('Gratuito'), and provides important methodological nuances (e.g., different profit bases for margins and ROE). This adds valuable context beyond a simple definition, though it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or describe all return contents.
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 two sentences long and every phrase earns its place: the first sentence defines the tool's content, and the second provides a critical practical caveat for correct usage. It is well-structured, front-loaded, and free of redundant information.
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?
Given that the tool is a parameterless reference dictionary, the description provides sufficient context: it explains what the JSON contains, mentions a key caveat for correct use, and notes the cost. It does not enumerate all indicators, but that is not essential for this type of tool, and the description is complete enough for an agent to understand its purpose.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% vacuously. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not need to explain parameter behavior. It provides no parameter-related information, which is appropriate for a parameterless reference tool.
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 states that the tool provides indicator methodology in JSON format, including formula, CVM accounts, and the profit base for each indicator. It gives a specific example (margem_liquida vs roe) to illustrate its purpose, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'metodologia'.
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 implies the tool is useful for correctly comparing indicators ('IMPORTANTE para comparar corretamente'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'metodologia' or other sibling tools. There is no clear when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.
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.
Mosttools have distinct purposes, but there are minor overlap risk between 'dicionario' (formulas) and 'metodologia' (method explanation), and between 'fiis_ranking' and 'screener_fiis', although the descriptions are clear.
Naming mixes Portuguese and English styles (e.g., 'screener', 'ranking'), with irregular patterns: mostly singular nouns rather than standard verb_noun. Also inconsistent accents and underscores, but no camelCase.
14 tools in a B3 data server is a reasonable scope covering most core financial analytics, indicator dictionaries, screens and rankings.
Good coverage of financial statements, dividends, balance sheet/health, FII analytics and price multiple; lacks a direct cash-flow statement tool/earnings date tracker, but the overall surface covers most use cases.