CDF Finance

Adicionar avaliação

add_equity_valuation

Adiciona um ponto no histórico de valor de um investimento (id = id do investimento/equity, não da avaliação). Sempre insere uma nova linha, mesmo se já houver avaliação na mesma data — não sobrescreve nem deduplica. date é opcional (default agora); use pra registrar uma avaliação retroativa. Efeito colateral: o value/cost do investimento em si também é atualizado para os valores desta avaliação, então ela passa a ser o valor 'atual' retornado por list_equities. Diferença de update_equity: use esta ferramenta pra registrar histórico com data específica sem tocar em outros campos do investimento (nome, ticker etc.); use update_equity quando quiser editar o investimento e deixar o valor atualizado datado de hoje.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Id do investimento (Equity), não da avaliação
`cost`	No	Custo/valor investido nesta data. Default: igual a value (sem ganho/perda registrado se omitido)
`date`	No	Data da avaliação (ISO). Default: agora. Use pra backfill retroativo
`value`	Yes	Novo valor de mercado do investimento

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	No
`asOf`	No
`cost`	No
`value`	No
`equityId`	No
`createdAt`	No
`updatedAt`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed4 schema fields changedSep 1, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / cost

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Custo/valor investido nesta data. Default: igual a value (sem ganho/perda registrado se omitido)",
+  "type": "number"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / date / description

Added value: +"Data da avaliação (ISO). Default: agora. Use pra backfill retroativo"

addedInput schema / properties / id / description

Added value: +"Id do investimento (Equity), não da avaliação"

addedInput schema / properties / value / description

Added value: +"Novo valor de mercado do investimento"

First observedSep 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false), the description discloses key behavioral traits: it always inserts a new row and never overwrites or deduplicates, consistent with the non-idempotent flag, and it reveals the important side effect that the investment's own value/cost is updated to this valuation, becoming the 'current' value returned by list_equities. It also clarifies what it does NOT touch (name, ticker), which is valuable context for a mutation tool.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Four sentences, each carrying necessary information: core purpose, insert-always semantics, date default behavior, side effect, and sibling differentiation. The most important behavioral facts are front-loaded and no sentence is wasted.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a mutation tool with two required parameters and a significant side effect on the parent investment, the description covers everything needed for correct invocation: non-idempotent insert behavior, date semantics, the side effect on current value, and which sibling to use instead. An output schema exists, so return values do not need to be explained.

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 100% and the schema already documents all four parameters well (id as equity id, cost defaulting to value, date defaulting to now for backfill). The description re-states the id/date clarifications and ties the value/cost side effect to the parameters, but this is behavioral context more than new parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description states a specific action — 'Adiciona um ponto no histórico de valor de um investimento' (adds a point in the value history of an investment) — with a clear resource and the crucial distinction that `id` refers to the investment/equity, not the valuation. It also explicitly differentiates itself from the confusable sibling update_equity.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description names update_equity as the alternative and gives an explicit decision rule: use this tool to register history at a specific date without touching other investment fields, and use update_equity to edit the investment with today's date. It also tells when to use the `date` parameter for retroactive backfill.

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

All CDF Finance tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

The tools are individually well-described and many cross-reference their closest neighbors, but the set contains several easily confused clusters: create_transaction/confirm_new_transaction, update_equity/add_equity_valuation, the invoice tools (current_invoice, next_invoice, list_pending_invoices, get_invoice), and the many analytics/projection tools. The descriptions help a careful reader, but with 81 tools an agent is likely to misselect among these overlapping surfaces.

Naming Consistency3/5

CRUD operations consistently use create_/list_/update_/delete_ plus a resource noun, and all names are snake_case. However, there is a large second group of noun-phrase analytics tools (cashflow_forecast, spending_projection, categories_insights, transport_routine) plus one-off verbs such as can_afford, pay_invoice, and validate_current_invoices, so the naming convention is mixed even though it remains readable.

Tool Count1/5

81 tools is far beyond the practical MCP tool surface and exceeds the rubric's 50+ extreme-mismatch threshold. Even if each tool maps to a real finance endpoint, the volume overwhelms an agent's context window and makes selection much harder.

Completeness4/5

The server covers the finance lifecycle extensively: accounts, cards, invoices, transactions, recurring rules, budgets, goals, debts, equities, categories, tags, cost centers, profile, projections, and insights all have working read/write paths. Minor gaps remain, such as no update/delete for tags and no direct update/delete for system-generated invoices, but agents can usually work around these.

Adicionar avaliação

Input Schema

Output Schema

Schema Changelog

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources