Skip to main content
Glama

ASA MCP

by io.github.mcp-dir

openfinance_list_transactions_by_item

Read-onlyIdempotent

Consolidated cash-flow analysis for a whole bank CONNECTION over a period, in ONE call. Resolves the connection's accounts internally and fans out their transactions, so you do NOT need to call openfinance_list_accounts first nor carry account_id uuids between calls. Pass item (connector_id, connector_name or item_id) to target one bank, or OMIT it to analyze ALL linked banks at once. from/to are ISO dates (YYYY-MM-DD). Default granularity:'monthly' returns a COMPACT summary (no raw rows): total entradas, saídas, saldo_liquido, monthly evolution (por_mes), and top_despesas/top_recebimentos (largest N each), plus a per-account breakdown (by_account). Use this for 'análise anual/mensal', 'fluxo de caixa', 'entradas e saídas', 'maiores gastos/recebimentos'. Set granularity:'raw' to ALSO get every consolidated transaction (heavier — only when itemized rows are needed); combine with detail:'rich' to enrich those rows with merchantInfo (cnpj/cnae/businessName/category) + extra creditCardMetadata (billId, purchaseDate, fees), or detail:'raw' for the full untouched Pluggy object per row, when the connector provides them. type filters BANK or CREDIT accounts. On a connection with many transactions the scan caps at 5000/account and flags truncated:true. May include a provider_incident block when the Open Finance provider has an OPEN incident affecting a connected bank: the totals/rows may be incomplete or wrong until the provider recovers, and reconnecting does not fix it.

Bulk support: accepts item_ids for batched execution.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toNo
fromNo
itemNo
typeNo
top_nNo
detailNo
item_idNo
item_idsNo
granularityNo

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description discloses important behavioral traits: internal account resolution, caps at 5000 transactions/account with truncation flag, provider incident block causing incomplete data, and bulk support via item_ids. All consistent 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is long but front-loaded with the main purpose and key differentiator. Logical flow: purpose, convenience, parameter details, use cases, exceptions. Some redundancy (e.g., 'also' in raw mode) but generally efficient for the information density.

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 no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return structure (compact summary fields, raw rows, top items, per-account breakdown) and edge cases (truncation, provider incidents). Covers all 9 parameters sufficiently and provides context for execution.

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 compensates by explaining item (connector_id, name, or item_id), from/to as ISO dates, granularity values, detail options (compact, rich, raw), and type filter. Implicitly describes top_n via 'largest N each.' Could be more explicit about top_n parameter name.

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's purpose: 'Consolidated cash-flow analysis for a whole bank CONNECTION over a period, in ONE call.' It distinguishes itself from having to call openfinance_list_accounts first, and contrasts with sibling tools like openfinance_list_transactions by offering aggregation and bulk analysis.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: when to omit 'item' to analyze all banks, when to use monthly vs raw granularity, and example use cases ('análise anual/mensal', 'fluxo de caixa'). It tells you not to call openfinance_list_accounts first. However, it does not explicitly compare to all sibling tools or say when not to use this tool.

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

All ASA 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

The openfinance_* family is mostly well-differentiated by resource type, but several tools overlap in purpose: openfinance_get_account_balance, openfinance_get_accounts_detail, and openfinance_list_accounts all return account/balance data, and openfinance_list_transactions versus openfinance_list_transactions_by_item have similar scopes. The marketplace tool also bundles many sub-actions (search, invoke, install, subscribe, report_bug, prompt library) into one tool, and duplicates the standalone report_bug tool. Detailed descriptions help, but an agent could easily misselect among the account and transaction variants.

Naming Consistency4/5

Naming is largely consistent: the finance tools follow a clear openfinance_verb_noun pattern (list_accounts, get_account_balance, force_sync, update_transaction_category). There are minor singular/plural inconsistencies (get_account_balance vs get_accounts_detail, get_credit_card_bill vs list_credit_card_bills) and generic platform verbs like authenticate/connect/marketplace that follow a different style, but the overall pattern is predictable and readable.

Tool Count3/5

25 tools is at the upper boundary of what feels manageable for a server covering platform management, marketplace operations, and a broad Open Finance data domain. The count is defensible given the many resource types (accounts, transactions, bills, loans, investments, connections), but it is heavy and the marketplace tool alone packs a dozen sub-capabilities into one entry, making the surface feel larger than 25 discrete tools.

Completeness5/5

The Open Finance surface is quite complete: connection lifecycle (list, connect, disconnect, force sync, status, provider status), account and balance reads, transactions with categorization support, credit card bills with payment status, loans, investments, and investment transactions. Platform concerns like authentication, versioning, toolkit state, marketplace search/install/invoke, and bug reporting are also covered, leaving no obvious dead ends for the server's stated purpose.

Resources