Skip to main content
Glama

openfinance_get_account_balance

Read-onlyIdempotent

Returns the latest available balance per account id (GET /accounts/:id/balance). This is the freshest balance the provider can serve, but it is a SNAPSHOT anchored to the connection's last upstream sync: the updateDateTime/updatedAt in each row is that sync instant, NOT a to-the-second live read. If a movement that just happened is not reflected yet, or the balance disagrees with the sum of openfinance_list_transactions, run openfinance_force_sync to pull fresh data and then re-read. Pass account_ids as an array (1–50). CREDIT accounts may return Pluggy BALANCE_FETCH_ERROR (provider could not fetch it) or BALANCE_CONSENT_ERROR (the institution refused it because the consent lacks the balance permission — reconnecting the bank restores it) — those rows include a structured warning instead of throwing. When the financial institution is temporarily unavailable upstream (5xx) or the connector is not Open Finance, the row DEGRADES to the last-synced balance with realtime: false, updatedAt and a warning instead of an error. Response shape: { results: [...], errors: [{ id, status, message }] }.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
account_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. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses that the value is a snapshot anchored to the last upstream sync, not a live read, and clarifies the meaning of updateDateTime/updatedAt. It also details credit-account error conditions and the structured warning mechanism. However, the final sentence is truncated ('the row DEGRADES to ...'), leaving the exact behavior for 5xx and non-Open Finance cases unspecified, which prevents a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains mostly useful behavioral details, but it is a long single paragraph and the final sentence is cut off mid-thought. Some phrasing is also redundant (e.g., 'NOT a to-the-second live read' reinforces the snapshot point). The truncation makes the structure feel incomplete.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given there is no output schema, the description partially fills the gap by mentioning rows, updateDateTime/updatedAt, and structured warnings, but it does not describe the full response shape (e.g., balance field, currency, status). The truncated error-handling sentence also leaves a significant behavioral gap for upstream 5xx or non-Open Finance connectors. Overall it is adequate but not complete.

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

Parameters3/5

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It does state 'Pass account_ids as an array (1–50)', adding the array format and size limit that the schema itself does not mention. But it does not explain the format or source of account IDs, how to obtain them, or behavior for invalid entries, so it only partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Returns the latest available balance per account id', and reinforces it with the endpoint URL. It also distinguishes the tool by focusing on balance data rather than transactions or account details, and names related siblings in context. This leaves no doubt about what the tool does.

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?

The description explicitly tells the agent when to use the tool (latest balance per account) and when to switch to a complementary workflow: if the balance is stale or disagrees with transactions, run openfinance_force_sync and re-read. It also explains when credit accounts return structured warnings instead of errors and how to recover consent issues. This is concrete, actionable usage guidance.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

The Open Finance tools have clear list/get pairs for each resource (accounts, transactions, loans, investments, bills), but the marketplace tool is a monolith combining search, describe, invoke, install, subscribe, and prompt library actions, causing ambiguity about which action to use. Additionally, openfinance_list_transactions and openfinance_list_transactions_by_item overlap in purpose but are distinguished by scope.

Naming Consistency3/5

The openfinance_* group follows a consistent verb_noun pattern (list, get, update, force_sync, etc.), but the platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, show_version, report_bug, toolkit_info) use mixed bare verbs and nouns, creating two distinct conventions. Names like openfinance_list_transactions_by_item are longer but still consistent within the group.

Tool Count4/5

25 tools is at the heavy end, but the Open Finance domain alone justifies 17 tools covering distinct resources and operations. The platform tools add 8 more, though the marketplace tool bundles many sub-actions into one, inflating the effective count. The number is borderline but not excessive given the breadth of banking functionality.

Completeness5/5

The Open Finance surface is comprehensive with list/get for every major resource, plus support for sync, status, search, categories, and category updates. The platform tools cover authentication, connection status, marketplace operations, bug reporting, version, and toolkit state. No obvious gaps or dead ends in the workflow.