Skip to main content
Glama

Banco Digio 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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), description adds critical behaviors: 5000-transaction cap per account with truncation flag, provider_incident block for incomplete data, bulk support via item_ids, and detailed response structure. This is comprehensive for a read-only tool.

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?

Description is well-structured: main purpose, alternative uses, parameter details, edge cases. Though somewhat verbose, each sentence adds necessary detail. Some repetition (e.g., compact summary mentioned twice) but not excessive.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description covers key aspects: input parameters, default behaviors, truncation, provider incidents, and response structure for both granularities. Missing minor details like pagination for raw mode but the caps and truncation flag mitigate this.

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 coverage, description compensates by explaining most parameters: item, from/to, granularity, detail, type, and item_ids. However, the 'top_n' parameter is only implied in 'largest N each' and the interplay between granularity and detail could be clearer (e.g., compact as a detail value vs. output description).

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?

Clearly states 'Consolidated cash-flow analysis for a whole bank CONNECTION over a period, in ONE call.' Distinguishes from siblings like openfinance_list_transactions by highlighting that it internally resolves accounts, eliminating the need for separate calls, and allows analysis of all connected banks in one go.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use this tool: 'Use this for 'análise anual/mensal', 'fluxo de caixa', 'entradas e saídas', 'maiores gastos/recebimentos'.' Also advises against using openfinance_list_accounts first, and explains scenarios for different granularities and detail levels.

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

All Banco Digio 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

Most tools map clearly to a distinct openfinance resource or action (accounts, transactions, bills, investments, loans, connections, provider health), and the platform utilities are a separate family. The only realistically confusable pairs are openfinance_list_transactions vs openfinance_list_transactions_by_item and openfinance_list_accounts vs openfinance_get_accounts_detail, but the descriptions draw sharp boundaries between them.

Naming Consistency4/5

The 19 openfinance_* tools follow a strong openfinance_<verb>_<noun> convention, with only minor exceptions like openfinance_provider_status and openfinance_list_transactions_by_item. The six platform tools mix bare verbs (authenticate, connect), nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), and verb_noun (report_bug, show_version), but they are clearly a separate utility layer.

Tool Count3/5

25 tools sits at the top of the 'feels heavy' band. The number is defensible for a full Open Finance data product plus platform management tools, but an agent is exposed to a lot of surface area, and the same server mixes a banking-data adapter with a marketplace/utility layer.

Completeness5/5

The openfinance surface covers the full lifecycle: search/connect/reconnect/disconnect banks, force-sync, item status, provider incidents, accounts, balances, transactions per account and per connection, credit-card bills with paid-status derivation, investments and investment transactions, loans, loan detail, and transaction categorization. Platform tools cover auth, connection status, toolkit state, version, bug reporting, and marketplace operations, so there are no obvious dead ends.

Resources