Skip to main content
Glama

CDF Finance

by io.github.VessellTech

Histórico financeiro mensal

analytics_history
Read-only

Série histórica contínua (meses com e sem movimento) com saldo reconstruído, patrimônio e estatística elaborada (média/mediana/desvio/variação, tendência por regressão linear, médias móveis 3/6/12m, taxa de poupança). Suporta vida inteira (até 120 meses). Use from/to como YYYY-MM ou YYYY-MM-DD. Use esta ferramenta pro histórico mensal geral (saldo/patrimônio/receita/despesa); para série por categoria use category_history, para separar aporte de valorização em investimentos use wealth_evolution, e para um retrato único do momento atual (não série) use financial_snapshot.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toNoFim do intervalo (YYYY-MM ou YYYY-MM-DD) — default mês atual
fromNoInício do intervalo (YYYY-MM ou YYYY-MM-DD) — default 11 meses atrás

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toNo
fromNo
statsNo
trendNo
monthsNo
debtTotalNo
equityTotalNo
movingAverageNo
currentBalanceNo

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations, it discloses non-obvious behavior: continuous months including those without movement, reconstructed balance, computed statistics, up to 120 months of history, and accepted date formats. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Description is dense but front-loaded: core purpose and scope first, then limit/date syntax, then sibling routing. The statistics list is long but informative; there is no filler.

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 read-only analytics tool with an output schema present and only two optional parameters, the description covers what it returns conceptually, how to scope dates, the range limit, and how it differs from related tools. Nothing critical is missing.

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?

The schema already covers the two optional date parameters at 100% with syntax and defaults. The description adds a meaningful constraint: the range can span up to 120 months (entire life), which helps an agent choose a valid 'from' value.

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 clearly identifies the tool as a continuous monthly financial history series with reconstructed balance, net worth, and statistics, and explicitly contrasts it with category_history, wealth_evolution, and financial_snapshot. This differentiates it from siblings without needing to inspect schemas.

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?

It gives direct instructions: use for general monthly history (balance/equity/income/expense), and names sibling tools for category series, investment appreciation, and current snapshot. It also documents supported range and date formats, leaving no ambiguity about when to use this tool.

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

All CDF Finance toolsInspect
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.

Resources