CDF Finance

Gastos do mês atual

current_month_spending

Read-only

Só o mês corrente (não série futura): gasto já realizado, ritmo diário, total projetado até o fim do mês e confiança da projeção, comparado a orçamento se houver. Diferente de cashflow_forecast/spending_projection (que olham vários meses à frente) e de categories_insights (que compara mês atual vs anterior por categoria, sem ritmo/projeção de fechamento).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`userId`	No	Id do cliente a consultar (uso de planejador financeiro); omitido usa o próprio usuário autenticado
`topCategories`	No	Quantas categorias trazer em topCategories, 1-20 (default 5)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`budget`	No
`dailyPace`	No
`confidence`	No
`overBudget`	No
`spentSoFar`	No
`daysElapsed`	No
`daysInMonth`	No
`generatedAt`	No
`topCategories`	No
`projectedTotal`	No
`dailyBudgetSimple`	No
`dailyBudgetByWeekday`	No

Schema Changelog

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

Changed3 schema fields changedSep 1, 2026

addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```

addedInput schema / properties / topCategories

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Quantas categorias trazer em topCategories, 1-20 (default 5)",
+  "type": "number"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / userId

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Id do cliente a consultar (uso de planejador financeiro); omitido usa o próprio usuário autenticado",
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedSep 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context beyond those: the strict current-month scope, the fact that projections include a confidence level, and the conditional budget comparison ('se houver'). No contradictions 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?

A single dense sentence front-loads the critical scope constraint, then lists the computed outputs, then states exclusions. Every clause earns its place: nothing is filler, and the sibling differentiation is packed into the trailing clause without bloating the text.

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, the description covers everything needed: scope limitation, the set of computed values, the conditional budget comparison, and sibling differentiation. Return structure is already handled by the output schema, so no additional information is missing.

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%: both userId (client id for financial planner use, defaults to authenticated user) and topCategories (count range 1-20, default 5) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information, so the baseline of 3 applies — the schema carries the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific resource (current month spending) and enumerates exactly what is computed: realized spending, daily pace, projected total to end of month, projection confidence, and budget comparison when a budget exists. It also bounds the scope with 'Só o mês corrente (não série futura)' and explicitly contrasts itself with three sibling tools, so an agent can distinguish it without opening any schema.

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 explicitly names alternatives and the condition that selects them: cashflow_forecast/spending_projection for multi-month forward looks, and categories_insights for month-over-month category comparison without pace/closing projection. An agent deciding between these tools has clear routing criteria and no inference is required.

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.

Gastos do mês atual

Input Schema

Output Schema

Schema Changelog

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources