Skip to main content
Glama

99Pay MCP

by io.github.mcp-dir

openfinance_get_accounts_detail

Read-onlyIdempotent

Returns full account objects including extended creditData (additional cards, limits) per id (GET /accounts/:id). Pass account_ids as an array (1–50). { results, errors } batch shape. May include a provider_incident block when the Open Finance provider has an OPEN incident affecting a connected bank: credit limits and balances may be unreliable (e.g. a limit near 1,00) until the provider recovers. Do not present those values as real.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
account_idsYes

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds critical context about the provider_incident block, warning that credit data may be unreliable during Open Finance incidents, which goes well beyond 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?

Every sentence adds value: main action, usage, batch format, and a critical reliability warning. No wasted words, front-loaded with the core purpose.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given no output schema, the description covers the return shape ({results, errors}) and the provider_incident block, which is sufficient for a single-parameter tool. It could mention authentication or error scenarios, but the existing details are adequate.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains the account_ids parameter's role and constraints (array size, batch shape). However, it could be more specific about the expected format of IDs (e.g., from list_accounts), so it's not a perfect 5.

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 it returns full account objects with extended creditData per ID, and distinguishes from list operations. It includes the endpoint and batch shape, making the purpose unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It specifies how to pass account_ids as an array of 1-50, which is clear usage. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like openfinance_list_accounts or provide when-not scenarios, leaving some ambiguity.

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

All 99Pay MCP 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

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource and action, with clear separation between general server utilities (authenticate, connect, marketplace) and the openfinance_* family (get/list/search/update per domain). No two tools appear to overlap: list_transactions vs list_transactions_by_item are differentiated by granularity, and get_item_status vs provider_status by scope. The marketplace tool, while broad, is explicitly named and described, so it doesn't cause ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

All 20 openfinance_* tools follow a strict verb_noun snake_case pattern (list_accounts, get_account_balance, force_sync, update_transaction_category, etc.). The five general tools also use snake_case and clear names, maintaining consistency across the set. No mixing of conventions or inconsistent verb styles.

Tool Count4/5

At 25 tools, the set is on the higher end but well-justified for a platform that aggregates Open Finance data and provides a marketplace. The 20 openfinance tools cover distinct banking operations (accounts, transactions, bills, loans, investments, connections, sync, status, search, categories), each addressing a specific need. The 5 general tools handle authentication, connection status, and platform info. No obvious trivial or redundant tools; each earns its place.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface is comprehensive for the stated domain: CRUD-like coverage across financial resources (list/get for accounts, transactions, bills, loans, investments), plus state management (force_sync, disconnect, update_category) and ecosystem support (search_connectors, provider_status, marketplace). It also includes utilities like authenticate, connect, and version/bug reporting. No missing operations that would cause agent failures; the set covers connection lifecycle, data retrieval, and even API diagnostics.

Resources