Skip to main content
Glama

Ágora MCP

openfinance_get_credit_card_bill

Read-onlyIdempotent

Returns bill-level detail for one or more credit card bills by id (GET /bills/:id): dueDate, billClosingDate (when the cycle closed — the boundary that defines which purchases belong to this bill), totalAmount, financeCharges and payments[] (id, paymentDate, amount, valueType, paymentMode). ITEMIZED PURCHASES (OPT-IN): the bank's bill payload has no transactions in it — they live on the card ACCOUNT. Pass include_transactions:true (plus account_id of the credit card, since the bill itself carries no account reference) and each row also gets transactions[], transactions_count, transactions_sum and reconciles_with_total, already matched to that bill. Always check transactions_basis: bill_id = exact (the bank tagged each transaction with this bill — the normal case for CLOSED bills), date_window = ESTIMATE (confidence:'low', window echoed in transactions_window) used when the connector tags no billId or the bill is still open (PENDING lines get no billId until the cycle closes), unavailable = no link possible. Opt-in because it costs an extra full transaction scan of the account. Whatever the basis, the bill's own totalAmount is authoritative — do NOT rebuild it by summing transactions. Without the opt-in the response carries a transactions_hint; you can also fetch them yourself via openfinance_list_transactions with the credit card account_id and a from/to range ending at billClosingDate. Pass bill_ids as an array — use openfinance_list_credit_card_bills first to discover ids. { results, errors } batch shape. NOTE: Pluggy does NOT return a paid/status field. In Brazilian Open Finance, payments[] reflects payments registered during THIS bill's billing cycle — typically the payment of the PREVIOUS bill (do NOT assume this bill was paid just because payments[] is non-empty). To check paid status, prefer openfinance_list_credit_card_bills which derives payment_status via cross-bill match.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bill_idsYes
account_idNo
transactions_detailNo
include_transactionsNo

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Added
  2. Removed
  3. Added
  4. Removed
  5. Added
  6. Removed
  7. Added
  8. Removed
  9. Added
  10. Removed
  11. Added
  12. Removed
  13. Added
  14. Removed
  15. Added
  16. Removed
  17. Added
  18. Removed
  19. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / account_id
      Added value: +{
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / properties / include_transactions
      Added value: +{
      +  "type": "boolean"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / properties / transactions_detail
      Added value: +{
      +  "enum": [
      +    "compact",
      +    "rich",
      +    "raw"
      +  ],
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
  20. Added
  21. Removed
  22. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only state read-only/idempotent; the description adds the dangerous domain beware: an extra full account transaction cost when opting in ('costs a full extra transaction translation scan of the true'), `transactions_basis` semantics with `confidence:'low'` estimates, the hard warning that `totalAmount` is authoritative and must not be rebuilt from transactions, and the counter-intuitive Plncy Open Finance reality — `payments[]` typically reflects the PREVIOUS bill's payment, so non-empty does not mean this bill was paid. No contradiction with the readOnly annotations.

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 — a single dense paragraph — but front-loads the core purpose and every subsequent sentence carries non-redundant value (cost, basis, paid-status caveat, batch shape, field semantics). It loses a point for being much heavier than needed to name the kernel; a few one-off phases could be structured heads (e.g., a short section for 'paid status caveat. Still, its content density is justified by the domain'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?

For a read tool with a complex domain (open finance, bill-transaction coupling), the description covers, beyond the schema, the answer fields, the opt-in flows with their conditions, the reliability tiers, the batch shape `{ results, errors }`, the discovery sequency via siblings, and the paid-status workaround. The tool answers what an agent would need to avoid both improper cost (extra scan) and semantic misinterpretation (payments vs prevalence). The only missing piece is the `transactions_detail` enum meaning, covered above, but given the enormous amount of context already present, that is a minor omission.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate — and it strongly does for three key parameters: `bill_ids` (must be an array; discover via sibling), `account_id` (needed only when include_transactions:true, because the bill disнять the account refinement), and `include_transactions` (what it adds, its cost, and its basis). However, `transactions_detail` (enum: compact/rich/raw) is never mentioned in the description; an agent cannot tell what that parameter authorizes, which is a significant missing piece.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Returns bill-level detail for one or more credit cards bills by id', immediately contrasting with siblings `openfinance_list_credit_card_bills` (discover ids / paid status) and `openfinance_list_transactions` (fetch itemized purchases). With the named endpoint and field objects, an agent knows exactly what this tool is and how it's different from a search-by-list 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?

Explicit when-to/ when-not-to: 'use openfinance_list_credit_card_bills first to discover ids'; 'To check paid status, prefer openfinance_list_credit_card_bills which derives payment_status via cross-bill match'; and uses conditions like 'Pass include_transactions:true... if you also fetch transactions by yourself via openfinance_list_transation'. It even tells when transactions are only an estimate (OPEN bills) vs exact (CLOSED bills), leaving nothing to inference.

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.