Skip to main content
Glama

Atacadão MCP

by io.github.mcp-dir

openfinance_list_investments

Read-onlyIdempotent

Returns the investment portfolio for a connection (broker or bank with INVESTMENTS product enabled): FIIs, stocks, ETFs, fixed income (CDB/LCI/LCA/Tesouro), mutual funds, retirement (previdência) and COE. Each row carries balance, amount, amountOriginal, amountProfit, lastMonthRate / annualRate / lastTwelveMonthsRate (when available), dueDate, issuer, ISIN, etc. Returns { total:0, results:[], warning } instead of throwing when INVESTMENTS isn't enabled (403) or other upstream errors. DATA INTEGRITY: when MULTIPLE positions come back as TOTAL_WITHDRAWAL with balance/quantity 0 at once (mass zeroing), the tool cross-checks each position's own transaction history upstream; if the zeroing is contradicted (BUY with no sale/redemption/transfer) the response carries data_integrity_warning and the affected rows are flagged integrity:'suspect_zeroed' — treat those balances as UNAVAILABLE (likely a temporary connector failure publishing zeros), never as real R$0, and do NOT sum them into the portfolio.

Bulk support: accepts item_ids for batched execution.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
itemNo
pageNo
typeNo
item_idNo
item_idsNo
page_sizeNo

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.). It details handling of errors, data integrity checks for mass zeroing, and flagging of suspect rows. No contradictions 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 informative but somewhat lengthy. It is well-structured with overview, field details, error handling, and data integrity warnings. Every sentence adds value, though minor trimming could improve conciseness.

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 the complexity (multiple asset types, error modes, data integrity logic) and lack of output schema, the description covers key behaviors. However, it lacks details on pagination (page/page_size), sorting, and batch processing with item_ids.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but only briefly mentions item_ids for batched execution. The other five parameters (item, page, type, item_id, page_size) are not explained, leaving their semantics unclear.

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 that the tool returns an investment portfolio for a connection, listing specific asset types (FIIs, stocks, ETFs, etc.). This differentiates it from sibling tools like openfinance_list_accounts or openfinance_list_transactions.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for retrieving investment portfolios but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like openfinance_list_investment_transactions. It mentions error handling (returns empty for non-enabled investments) but lacks direct guidance on selection.

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

All Atacadão 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Tools are largely distinct: openfinance_* tools cover specific resources (accounts, transactions, bills, loans, investments) with clear boundaries. Some overlap exists between list_transactions and list_transactions_by_item, and between status/sync tools (get_item_status, force_sync, provider_status), but descriptions are detailed enough to guide selection.

Naming Consistency4/5

The openfinance_* prefix provides strong consistency for the bulk of tools, with clear verb_noun patterns (list, get, update, force_sync). The platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, etc.) break the pattern but are few and their names are intuitive. Overall, minor mixing of conventions but readable.

Tool Count4/5

25 tools is on the higher side but appropriate for a comprehensive Open Finance and platform management server. The count includes both data access (accounts, transactions, bills, loans, investments) and platform utilities (authentication, connection state, marketplace). No redundant tools; each serves a clear purpose.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers the core read operations for connected banks (accounts, transactions, bills, loans, investments), connection management (sync, status, disconnect), and category correction. Minor gaps include no get-transaction-by-id and no update for account metadata, but these are not critical for the typical use case of a banking data aggregator.

Resources