Skip to main content
Glama

openfinance_list_credit_card_bills

Read-onlyIdempotent

Returns CLOSED credit card bills for a CREDIT-type account: dueDate, totalAmount, minimumPaymentAmount, allowsInstallments, plus payments[] (id, paymentDate, amount, valueType, paymentMode), payments_count, payments_total, finance charges aggregates, and a derived payment_status per bill. IMPORTANT — Brazilian Open Finance semantics: Pluggy does NOT return a paid/status field. The payment goes into the payments[] of the bill whose CYCLE contains the paymentDate (closing ≈ dueDate − 7d): pre-payment before close stays on the bill being paid; payment between close and due, or after due, lands on the NEXT bill. So payments[] on a bill commonly carries the previous bill's payment, NOT the current one's — do NOT assume this bill was paid just because payments[] is non-empty. Use the derived payment_status (PAID | OPEN | PAST_DUE_UNCONFIRMED | PAST_DUE_UNPAID): a bill is PAID when its OWN payments[] (early pre-payment) or ANY newer bill in the payload contains a payment with amount ≈ this bill's totalAmount (±R$0.50). The MOST RECENT bill that's past-due, with no own pre-payment match, cannot be confirmed via cross-bill (the next cycle hasn't closed yet) — it returns PAST_DUE_UNCONFIRMED. NEVER call such a bill 'vencida' categorically; flag that the payment may have been made between close and due and not yet reflected upstream. The full payment_status_legend is returned alongside the results. OPEN BILL & TOTAL DEBT (standardized, derived — OPT-IN): pass include_open_bill:true to ALSO get open_bill (the current not-yet-closed bill, próxima a vencer) and total_pending_debt (saldo devedor total = all pending installments), BOTH derived from PENDING transactions so they mean the same thing across connectors — use these instead of the CREDIT account's balance, whose meaning VARIES by connector (some report the open-bill partial, others the full installment debt). open_bill = { available, method (cycle_dates = real close/due dates | calendar_month_fallback = estimated, confidence:'low'), close_date, due_date, total_amount (net charges − credits), transaction_count }; plus a future_bills[] breakdown per month — LOW-confidence forward projections of PENDING installments (confidence:'low', basis), NOT authoritative bills (for closed months trust the results totalAmount). CONNECTOR ASYMMETRY: where the bank does NOT expose the open bill before closing (only closed bills, no reliable cycle dates), open_bill.available is false with a reason (connector_exposes_no_pending or open_bill_not_published) — that bill isn't retrievable by any endpoint until it closes (upstream limit of the institution's Open Finance feed, not our filter); check the bank app for the current open bill. When per-transaction billId grouping does not reconcile with the bills' totals, a bill_grouping_reliability warning is attached (trust totalAmount, do not sum by billId). Default false (the projection runs an extra accounts+transactions scan, so it's opt-in). The response opens with an account echo block ({ account_id, bank, name, number, type, item_id }) identifying WHICH card/bank these bills belong to. When more than one bank is connected, ALWAYS cross-check the echo against the card you intended to query and name the bank when presenting results — never attribute one bank's bills to another. This tool's results are bill-level summaries — NOT individual transactions, and each bill's totalAmount (from the bank) is the AUTHORITATIVE amount. To see itemized purchases/charges, use openfinance_list_transactions with the CREDIT account_id — but note creditCardMetadata.billId is a per-connector hint that can be sparse/inconsistent (e.g. Nubank), so do NOT reconstruct a bill total by summing transactions by billId. Returns a warning instead of failing if the CREDIT_CARDS product is not enabled.

Bulk support: accepts account_ids for batched execution.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNo
page_sizeNo
account_idYes
account_idsNo
include_open_billNo

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses critical behavioral semantics: Pluggy does not return a paid/status field, payment placement depends on cycle dates, payment_status derivation rules, connector asymmetry for open bills, and a warning instead of failure when CREDIT_CARDS is not enabled. These details are not available in annotations or schema.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is long but well-structured with bolded sections (e.g., IMPORTANT, OPEN BILL & TOTAL DEBT, CONNECTOR ASYMMETRY) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds substantive caveats or clarifications, though some redundancy exists (e.g., repeated emphasis on not summing by billId). It is dense but appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 there is no output schema, the description must explain return values, and it does comprehensively: lists all fields, explains payment_status legend, open_bill structure, future_bills, account echo, and warning behavior. It also covers edge cases like unreliable billId grouping and connector asymmetries, making it complete for effective invocation and interpretation.

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 description thoroughly explains include_open_bill (opt-in, derived fields, fallback behavior) and account_ids (bulk support), which are non-obvious. However, page/page_size are not mentioned, though they are standard pagination parameters. With 0% schema description coverage, this partial compensation is good but not complete.

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 opens with 'Returns CLOSED credit card bills for a CREDIT-type account', clearly stating the specific verb, resource, and account type. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly noting it provides bill-level summaries and pointing to openfinance_list_transactions for itemized charges.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'To see itemized purchases/charges, use openfinance_list_transactions with the CREDIT account_id' and warns about billId inconsistencies. It also provides cross-bank caution ('ALWAYS cross-check the echo against the card you intended to query') and explains when open_bill is unavailable, with reasons.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Each tool targets a specific resource/action (balance, transactions, bills, loans, investments, connections, categories, provider status), with clear boundaries. Minor overlap exists between openfinance_list_transactions and openfinance_list_transactions_by_item, and among the multiple account-related tools, but the descriptions are detailed enough to disambiguate.

Naming Consistency4/5

Almost all tools follow an openfinance_<verb>_<noun> snake_case pattern (list_accounts, get_credit_card_bill, update_transaction_category). Minor deviations include openfinance_provider_status (noun_noun) and openfinance_list_transactions_by_item (extra preposition), but the overall convention is predictable and consistent.

Tool Count4/5

19 tools is on the heavier side but fits the broad scope of an Open Finance banking integration covering connections, accounts, transactions, credit cards, loans, investments, and provider health. Each tool appears justified; the count does not feel bloated.

Completeness5/5

The surface covers the full lifecycle: connection discovery/search/list/sync/disconnect/status, account and transaction retrieval, credit card bill summaries and detail, loans, investments, transaction categorization, and provider diagnostics. No critical dead ends are apparent for the stated banking data domain.