Dock MCP

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

Name	Required	Description	Default
`to`	No
`from`	No
`item`	No
`type`	No
`top_n`	No
`detail`	No
`item_id`	No
`item_ids`	No
`granularity`	No

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating safe read operation. The description adds important behavioral details: capping at 5000 transactions per account with a truncated flag, potential provider_incident block, internal account resolution, and bulk support. This provides useful context beyond the 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 well-structured with clear sections and front-loaded purpose. It is thorough but somewhat verbose; some phrases could be tightened. However, every sentence adds value, so it earns a high score for conciseness given the amount of information conveyed.

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 the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, multiple enums), the description covers all aspects: parameter usage, behavior (capping, incidents), granularity options, bulk support, and the structure of the compact summary. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand and use the tool correctly.

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

Parameters5/5

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

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries full burden for parameter meaning. It explains each parameter: item (connector_id, connector_name, item_id), from/to (ISO dates), granularity (monthly vs raw), detail (compact, rich, raw), type (BANK or CREDIT), top_n (implied), and item_ids (bulk). The description adds significant semantic value beyond the schema.

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 explains that this tool performs consolidated cash-flow analysis for a whole bank connection over a period in one call, distinguishing it from siblings like openfinance_list_transactions which may require multiple calls. It explicitly states you do not need to call openfinance_list_accounts first, providing specificity.

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?

The description provides clear context on when to use this tool, such as for 'fluxo de caixa', 'entradas e saídas', etc., and mentions when to choose granularity monthly vs raw. It advises against calling openfinance_list_accounts first. However, it does not explicitly state when alternatives like openfinance_list_transactions or other tools are more appropriate, so it's slightly less than perfect.

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

All Dock MCP tools Inspect

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

Disambiguation4/5

Most openfinance_ tools target distinct resources (accounts, transactions, bills, loans, investments, connections, categories), so the core surface is clearly separated. However, several pairs could be confused at first glance: list_transactions vs list_transactions_by_item (both return transactions but at different scopes), get_credit_card_bill vs list_credit_card_bills (bill detail vs list of bills), and get_account_balance vs get_accounts_detail (balance snapshot vs full account object). The detailed descriptions help, but the overlap is nontrivial.

Naming Consistency4/5

The openfinance_* tools follow a consistent pattern (list_, get_, update_, search_, force_sync, provider_status, disconnect_bank), all using snake_case with a clear domain prefix. However, the general platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) have no such prefix or consistent verb_noun pattern, mixing the convention. The finance subset is strong, but the overall set isn't uniform.

Tool Count3/5

At 25 tools, this is at the upper boundary of acceptable for a broad financial domain covering connections, accounts, transactions, credit cards, loans, investments, categories, and provider health. Each tool adds real capability, so it doesn't feel bloated, but it's heavier than typical and pushes the borderline between well-scoped and too many.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers the Open Finance lifecycle thoroughly: connection management (list, reconnect, force sync, disconnect, provider status), account/balance reads, transaction listing (with filters, pagination, rich detail), credit card bills (closed and open/debt), loans, investments, category management, and a connector search. Obvious gaps like a tool for creating connections are handled via widget URLs rather than an API call, so the coverage feels adequate. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit tool for updating a connection's credentials beyond reconnect URLs), but nothing that would block core workflows.

openfinance_list_transactions_by_item

Input Schema

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources