Skip to main content
Glama

BTGPactual MCP

by io.github.mcp-dir

openfinance_get_loan_detail

Read-onlyIdempotent

Returns full loan contract detail by id (GET /loans/:loanId): interestRates[] (taxType, ratePercentage, indexer), contractedFinanceCharges[], balloonPayments[], warranties[], installments schedule (installmentsCount, paidInstallments, numberOfInstallmentsRemaining, installmentFrequency), amortizationScheduled, CET, ipocCode and dates. Use after openfinance_list_loans to deep-dive on a specific contract. Pass loan_ids as an array (1-50). { results, errors } batch shape.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
loan_idsYes

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

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds batch response shape { results, errors } and array size constraint, which are 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

Two sentences efficiently cover purpose, response fields, usage order, and parameter constraint. Front-loaded with key action; no redundancy.

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?

For a read-only endpoint with no output schema, description adequately explains return fields and batch shape. Lacks error details but sufficient given annotations.

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?

Schema has 0% description coverage. Description compensates by specifying array size (1-50) and indicating loan_ids are strings, giving meaning beyond type definition.

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?

Describes returning full loan contract detail by ID with explicit field listing. Distinguishes from sibling openfinance_list_loans by stating 'Use after openfinance_list_loans to deep-dive.'

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?

States to use after openfinance_list_loans for deep-dive, and specifies passing loan_ids as array (1-50). Does not explicitly exclude misuse but provides clear workflow context.

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

All BTGPactual 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

The openfinance_* family is well-decomposed by resource (accounts, transactions, bills, investments, loans, connections) and by action (list, get, update, sync, disconnect), and the highly detailed descriptions make each tool's boundaries clear. A few pairs can be confused at a glance (list_accounts vs. get_account_balance, list_transactions vs. list_transactions_by_item, connect vs. toolkit_info), but the semantics are ultimately distinguishable.

Naming Consistency3/5

The openfinance_* group follows a strong and consistent verb_noun pattern (list_transactions, get_item_status, force_sync). However, the platform-level tools are a mixed bag—authenticate, connect, marketplace, toolkit_info, show_version, report_bug—so there is no single predictable naming scheme across the whole server.

Tool Count3/5

At 25 tools, the server is at the heavy/borderline boundary, though most of the surface area is genuinely needed for Open Finance reads and connection lifecycle management. Some functions overlap (list_accounts returns balances that get_account_balance also exposes), making the set feel slightly bloated and closer to a two-in-one platform (Open Finance + marketplace).

Completeness4/5

The server covers the full Open Finance discovery and connectivity lifecycle: search, reconnect, force sync, provider health, accounts, transactions, credit cards, investments, loans, and category correction. Gaps like initiating a new connection or executing financial movements are handled through connect URLs rather than direct tools, so the unavoidable dead-end is likely workable and the core read/aggregate domain is well covered.

Resources