Skip to main content
Glama

CDF Finance

by io.github.VessellTech

Projeção de gastos

spending_projection
Read-only

Projeção mensal (até 12 meses) da despesa efetiva total e das categorias de maior peso, sem detalhar receita/saldo/patrimônio. É um recorte de cashflow_forecast focado só em despesa — use cashflow_forecast quando precisar também de saldo/entradas, e use este quando o interesse é só 'quanto vou gastar e em quê'.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
monthsNoQuantidade de meses a projetar, 1-12 (default 12)
userIdNoId do cliente a consultar (uso de planejador financeiro); omitido usa o próprio usuário autenticado
topCategoriesNoQuantas categorias trazer por mês em topCategories, 1-20 (default 5)
includePendingNoSe true (default), considera transações pendentes; false usa só o realizado e força recálculo ao vivo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
monthsNo
generatedAtNo

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed5 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • addedInput schema / properties / includePending
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Se true (default), considera transações pendentes; false usa só o realizado e força recálculo ao vivo",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / months
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Quantidade de meses a projetar, 1-12 (default 12)",
+  "type": "number"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / topCategories
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Quantas categorias trazer por mês 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"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by stating it does not detail revenue/balance/wealth and that it is a spending-focused subset of cashflow_forecast, which helps set output expectations.

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?

The description is two sentences, dense with relevant information, and front-loaded with the core purpose before the routing note. Every clause earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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?

Given the read-only annotations, 100% parameter documentation, an output schema, and a sibling list, the description covers the essential context: purpose, scope, exclusions, and alternative tool selection. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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%, so the schema fully documents all four parameters. The description reinforces the 12-month limit and top-category focus, but does not add substantial parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool projects monthly total effective spending and top categories over up to 12 months, and explicitly distinguishes it from cashflow_forecast. An agent can immediately understand what this tool produces and how it differs from its closest sibling.

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 provides explicit routing guidance: use cashflow_forecast when balances/inflows are also needed, and use spending_projection when only spending and its composition matter. This gives unambiguous selection criteria between closely related tools.

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