Connect your Necton account to AI via Brazil's Open Finance: balances, statements, cards, investment
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Average 4.5/5 across 25 of 25 tools scored. Lowest: 3.5/5.
Every tool targets a distinct resource or action. The openfinance_* family is cleanly separated by resource (accounts, transactions, bills, loans, investments, connections), and platform tools like marketplace, connect, and authenticate have clearly non-overlapping purposes. Even similar-sounding pairs like list_transactions vs list_transactions_by_item are differentiated by scope (account vs connection) in their descriptions.
The openfinance_* tools follow a highly consistent verb_noun pattern (list_accounts, get_loan_detail, force_sync), and the platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace) are also clear. The only minor inconsistency is the lack of a shared prefix between the two groups, but within each group naming is predictable and all names are lower_snake_case.
With 25 tools, this is at the upper bound of the ideal range, but the server covers two substantial domains: a comprehensive Open Finance API (19 tools) and platform/infrastructure operations (6 tools). Each tool has a distinct purpose and the count feels justified rather than bloated.
The Open Finance surface is extensive: account listing/detail/balance, transactions with filtering and category updates, credit card bills, loans, investments, connection management, and provider status. The marketplace tool covers discovery, invocation, installation, billing, and prompts. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct uninstall tool, but it's embedded in marketplace), but agents can accomplish the core workflows without dead ends.
authenticateAMCP.AI for IDE agents (Cursor, etc.): log in in the browser, copy the access token. Best: add it to this server's config as a header Authorization: Bearer <token> for a permanent, non-expiring connection. Or paste it here for a session-only login: call with { token: "" } after the user pastes, or with no args to get the link.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about the two login modes and the non-expiring nature of config-based auth. It does not contradict annotations and provides behavioral details beyond them, such as the idempotent nature of calling with or without token.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is informative but slightly verbose. It front-loads the purpose and then explains both use cases efficiently. Every sentence adds value, though it could be trimmed slightly without loss.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and one optional parameter, the description fully covers the authentication workflow, including permanent vs session options and step-by-step guidance. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates fully by explaining that the optional 'token' parameter is a JWT for session login, and that omitting it returns a login link. This adds crucial semantic meaning missing from the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool is for authentication, explaining two modes: browser login with token paste or config-based permanent login. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'connect' and provides specific verb-resource mapping.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives explicit guidance on when to use it: for logging in, with options to either paste a token for session-only login or add it to config for permanent access. It also implies the alternative of config-based login for permanent connections, which helps the agent choose correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
connectAReturns connection status and URLs. When all providers are connected, returns authenticated:true and empty pending[]. When credentials are missing, returns connect_url for the toolkit and per-install URLs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by detailing the return format for two scenarios (all connected vs missing credentials), going 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, about 40 words, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every phrase is informative with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and simple behavior, the description covers the two main states of the connection. It could mention error handling or other edge cases for completeness, but it suffices for a straightforward status check.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per guidelines, a baseline of 4 is appropriate since no parameter info is needed, and the description adds context about output behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns connection status and URLs, using a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'authenticate' by focusing on connection status rather than authentication flow.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 the tool (to check connection status) and what to expect in different states (all connected vs missing credentials). It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the contrast with siblings like 'authenticate' is evident.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
marketplaceAInspectThe official mcp.ai marketplace — the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them. Covers capability requests like "find an MCP that does X", "consulta um CPF", "is there a tool for Y". Core flow: action=search discovers MCPs by intent → describe returns one MCP's full profile (every tool with its id + params, pricing, auth) so you pick the right tool_id → invoke RUNS that tool. KEY: invoke works even when the MCP is NOT installed — it runs the tool pontualmente (one-off), without adding the MCP to the toolkit and without bloating the tool list. If the MCP needs a credential/login, invoke returns a connect link; if it is paid and the wallet is empty, invoke returns a checkout/top-up link (the user opens it, then you retry). Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT in the active toolkit (its tools then show up natively in future sessions); prefer invoke for a single/occasional use. list_tools lists what is callable right now. subscribe/cancel handle per-MCP billing; report_bug sends feedback; request_mcp asks us to build a NEW MCP when nothing fits. Search/describe flag installed_in_toolkit vs installed_in_workspace. Writes (install/uninstall/subscribe/cancel and the one-off install behind invoke) require workspace owner/admin. It also carries the mcp.ai PROMPT LIBRARY, which is about ready-made prompt TEXT rather than MCPs: search_prompts finds one, get_prompt returns its full text with {{variables}} filled, and publish_prompt saves a prompt and returns a shareable mcp.ai/p/ link that opens without login.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| action | No | search | |
| mcp_id | No | ||
| message | No | ||
| tool_id | No | ||
| arguments | No | {} | |
| immediate | No | ||
| tier_slug | No | ||
| prompt_body | No | ||
| prompt_slug | No | ||
| prompt_tool | No | ||
| prompt_vars | No | {} | |
| conversation | No | [] | |
| prompt_title | No | ||
| request_name | No | ||
| cancel_reason | No | ||
| cancel_comment | No | ||
| prompt_targets | No | ||
| report_context | No | ||
| prompt_category | No | ||
| request_details | No | ||
| prompt_description | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description exceeds the annotations' minimal safety hints by revealing critical behaviors: invoke works even when the MCP is not installed, returns a connect link if credentials are needed, and returns a checkout/top-up link for paid tools with an empty wallet. It also discloses that writes (install/uninstall/subscribe/cancel and the one-off install behind invoke) require workspace owner/admin, and that search/describe flag installation status.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single dense paragraph covering a large, multi-action tool. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and flow, then expands into prompts and permissions. Every sentence adds value, but the lack of bullet points or section breaks makes it harder to scan. It is appropriately sizable for a 14-action tool, though borderline verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 14 actions, 23 parameters, and no output schema, the description provides a remarkably complete operational picture. It covers discovery, execution, installation, billing, permissions, auth, one-off behavior, and the prompt library. An agent can correctly select actions and understand the primary workflows, edge cases (credential/checkout), and authorization constraints without external documentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It clarifies the action enum values (search, describe, install, invoke, list_tools, subscribe/cancel, report_bug, request_mcp, and prompt-related actions), and mentions tool_id, but leaves several parameters (e.g., immediate, tier_slug, cancel_reason, prompt_vars, conversation) unexplained. The description meaningfully compensates for the schema gap but not fully.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'The official mcp.ai marketplace — the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them,' which clearly defines the tool's dual role. It explicitly differentiates from sibling tools (e.g., openfinance_* and authenticate) by positioning itself as the central hub for finding, describing, invoking, and installing MCPs, plus prompt management.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Core flow: action=search discovers MCPs by intent → describe returns one MCP's full profile... so you pick the right tool_id → invoke RUNS that tool.' It further states 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT' and 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use,' directly advising on alternative actions. It also covers when to use list_tools, subscribe/cancel, and the prompt-library functions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
openfinance_disconnect_bankARevokes the Open Finance consent for a specific bank and deletes the connection data. The bank's data will no longer be available. Returns an add_connection_url to re-connect if needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| item | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already set destructiveHint=true; the description adds clarity by stating data will no longer be available and mentions the return of an add_connection_url, providing extra behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two clear, front-loaded sentences with no extraneous information; every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Missing parameter explanation and lack of error handling or prerequisites for this destructive action; return value is mentioned but output schema is absent, leaving gaps in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The sole parameter 'item' is not explained in the description or schema (0% coverage). The description mentions 'a specific bank' but fails to clarify that 'item' likely refers to an identifier.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool revokes consent and deletes connection data for a specific bank, distinguishing it from sibling tools like openfinance_list_connections or connect.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use when you need to disconnect a bank, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives like listing connections first.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
openfinance_force_syncAInspectForces the bank to re-sync one or more connections NOW and WAITS for it to finish (PATCH /items/:id, then polls until the item stops updating, up to ~60s). Use this when a balance or transaction list looks stale: a connection can read UPDATED yet be hours old, and this pulls fresh data WITHOUT disconnecting/reconnecting. Pass items as an array of selectors (item_id, connector_id, connector_name, or the user-set custom_label nickname); OMIT items to sync ALL linked banks. Returns { results, errors }; each result has the final status, executionStatus, lastUpdatedAt (advances when data is refreshed), and synced (true = fresh data is ready). needs_action (e.g. MFA_REINTERACTION / LOGIN_ERROR / WAITING_USER_INPUT) means the user must re-authenticate — those results include a reconnect_url that opens the widget in UPDATE mode for that exact connection (user enters credentials / MFA token, data refreshes in place, no slot consumed, no disconnect needed). timed_out: true means the sync is still running — re-check with openfinance_get_item_status. Set wait: false for fire-and-forget (returns immediately while UPDATING).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| wait | No | ||
| items | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses non-obvious behaviors: it polls up to 60s, returns detailed results including status, executionStatus, and potential needs_action with reconnect_url. Annotations only provide basic hints, so the description carries the burden well without contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is verbose but every sentence adds value, covering purpose, usage, parameters, returns, and edge cases. It is front-loaded with the main action. Minor reduction possible, but structure is clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description provides detailed return format and error explanations (needs_action, timed_out, reconnect_url). The complexity of syncing and waiting is fully addressed, making the agent capable of using the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description fully explains both parameters: items as an array of selectors (item_id, connector_id, connector_name, custom_label) and the optional wait boolean. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description compensates completely, adding meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool forces a bank to re-sync connections and waits for completion. It specifies the HTTP method (PATCH) and polling behavior, differentiating it from sibling tools like openfinance_get_item_status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly advises using this tool when balances or transactions look stale, and provides guidance on fire-and-forget mode with wait=false. It also instructs to re-check with openfinance_get_item_status on timeout, offering clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
openfinance_get_account_balanceAReturns real-time balance payload per account id (GET /accounts/:id/balance). Pass account_ids as an array (1–50). CREDIT accounts may return Pluggy BALANCE_FETCH_ERROR — 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 }] }.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account_ids | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, marking the tool as safe. The description adds valuable behavioral context: real-time nature, degradation to last-synced balance, and structured warnings instead of errors for CREDIT accounts and upstream failures. This goes beyond annotations without contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with a single paragraph covering purpose, parameter usage, and error scenarios. It front-loads the main action and efficiently packs information. Minor room for structure but remains clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description adequately explains response shape and error handling. It covers the parameter constraint (1–50 accounts) and degradation behavior. However, it omits details like authentication or rate limits, which are not critical but would enhance completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well. It explains that account_ids is an array of 1–50 items and describes behavior per account. It adds meaning about CREDIT account error handling, which clarifies parameter context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns 'real-time balance payload per account id' and specifies the HTTP endpoint. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like openfinance_list_accounts or openfinance_get_accounts_detail, which serve different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides context on when the tool might return degraded results or warnings, but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it implies real-time balance retrieval, it lacks direct 'when-to-use' or 'when-not-to-use' guidance against siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
openfinance_get_accounts_detailAReturns full account objects including extended creditData (additional cards, limits) per id (GET /accounts/:id). Pass account_ids as an array (1–50). { results, errors } batch shape. May include a provider_incident block when the Open Finance provider has an OPEN incident affecting a connected bank: credit limits and balances may be unreliable (e.g. a limit near 1,00) until the provider recovers. Do not present those values as real.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account_ids | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond idempotent/read-only annotations, describes provider_incident block causing unreliable data and warns not to present those values as real. Also mentions batch err handling.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences: purpose, parameter+batch, incident warning. No wordiness, front-loaded with core function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers parameter constraint, batch shape, incident warning. No output schema, so missing detailed return fields list is acceptable given the purpose description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage, description adds array size constraint (1-50) and batch shape. Provides more than schema's bare type definition.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states verb 'Returns', resource 'full account objects including extended creditData per id'. It distinguishes from openfinance_list_accounts by specifying per-id detail and mentions the batch shape.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly instructs to pass account_ids as array (1-50) and describes batch response shape. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
openfinance_get_credit_card_billAReturns bill-level detail for one or more credit card bills by id (GET /bills/:id): financeCharges and payments[] (id, paymentDate, amount, valueType, paymentMode). Does NOT return individual transactions — to get itemized credit card transactions (purchases, subscriptions, etc.), use openfinance_list_transactions with the credit card account_id and a from/to date range matching the bill's billing cycle (approximately dueDate − 30d to dueDate); each transaction MAY carry a creditCardMetadata.billId hint toward its bill, but it's sparse/inconsistent on some connectors (e.g. Nubank), so do NOT reconstruct a bill total by summing transactions by billId — the bill's own totalAmount is authoritative. Pass bill_ids as an array — use openfinance_list_credit_card_bills first to discover ids. { results, errors } batch shape. NOTE: Pluggy does NOT return a paid/status field. In Brazilian Open Finance, payments[] reflects payments registered during THIS bill's billing cycle — typically the payment of the PREVIOUS bill (do NOT assume this bill was paid just because payments[] is non-empty). To check paid status, prefer openfinance_list_credit_card_bills which derives payment_status via cross-bill match.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bill_ids | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses behavioral traits beyond annotations: batch result shape, that payments[] reflects previous bill payment, missing paid/status field, and sparse billId hints in transactions. Adds significant context to readOnlyHint and idempotentHint.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Front-loaded with main purpose, then organized caveats. Slightly verbose but each sentence adds value; could be trimmed slightly but still effective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers output fields partially (payments fields listed, financeCharges not detailed but named) and batch shape. No output schema so description carries burden; missing details on financeCharges structure but still adequate for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage; description fully explains the only parameter (bill_ids) by stating it must be an array and how to obtain IDs via list tool, adding meaning that schema alone lacks.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Explicitly states it returns bill-level detail for credit card bills by ID, specifying returned fields (financeCharges, payments) and clearly distinguishing from sibling tool 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: advises using openfinance_list_credit_card_bills for discovery, refers to openfinance_list_transactions for itemized transactions, and warns against reconstructing bill totals from transactions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
openfinance_get_item_statusAReturns the current status of a bank connection (UPDATED, UPDATING, LOGIN_ERROR, etc.), its executionStatus, connector metadata, and a reconnect_url that reopens the widget in UPDATE mode for that connection (re-authenticate / enter MFA token in place, without disconnecting and without consuming a connection slot). Omit item to get the status of ALL linked banks at once (returns { count, items }); pass item for a single bank.
Bulk support: accepts item_ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| item | No | ||
| item_id | No | ||
| item_ids | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing safety and idempotency. The description goes beyond by detailing the reconnect_url behavior (reauthentication without disconnecting), the response structure for bulk (count, items), and the executionStatus field. There is no contradiction with annotations, and the description adds significant behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is moderately concise, providing essential information in a structured manner. It front-loads the primary purpose and then elaborates on usage patterns. While every sentence adds value, the description could be slightly more terse, especially by combining the lines about bulk support. Overall, it is well-organized and readable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of an output schema, the description adequately covers the return fields (status, executionStatus, connector metadata, reconnect_url) and differentiates between single and bulk responses. It addresses the main usage scenarios. However, it does not mention error conditions or edge cases (e.g., what if an invalid item is given). For a read-only status tool, this is acceptable but not exhaustive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although the input schema has 0% coverage (no parameter descriptions), the description explains how to use 'item' and 'item_ids' effectively: omitting item returns all, passing item returns single, and item_ids enables bulk. However, it does not clarify the difference between 'item' and 'item_id' (both in schema), leaving some ambiguity. This prevents a perfect score because the description should explain all parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns the current status of a bank connection, listing specific fields (status, executionStatus, connector metadata, reconnect_url). It distinguishes between retrieving all connections versus a single one, and mentions bulk support with item_ids. Compared to sibling tools like openfinance_list_connections, which likely lists connections without status details, this tool's purpose is specific and well-defined.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 the tool: to get connection status. It explains different usage patterns (omit item for all, pass item for single, use item_ids for bulk). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with similar sibling tools like openfinance_list_connections or openfinance_provider_status. This omission prevents a higher score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
openfinance_get_loan_detailAReturns 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.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| loan_ids | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. Description adds batch behavior (`{ results, errors }` shape) and limit (1-50). No contradiction; adds useful context 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is a single long sentence with inline list; packs information but could be more structured (e.g., bullet points). Somewhat verbose but functional.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema exists, but description enumerates major fields (interestRates, charges, amortization, etc.) and mentions batch shape. Sufficiently complete for the tool's single parameter and read-only nature.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but description explains parameter `loan_ids` is an array of strings with size 1-50 and notes batch response shape. This compensates for missing schema description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns full loan contract detail by ID and lists specific fields. It distinguishes from sibling openfinance_list_loans by explicitly stating 'Use after openfinance_list_loans to deep-dive on a specific contract.'
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use after openfinance_list_loans to deep-dive on a specific contract.' Also mentions parameter range (1-50) and response shape. Does not state when not to use, but context is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
openfinance_list_accountsAReturns accounts for a bank connection: BANK (checking/savings) and CREDIT (credit card) with balance, number, type, subtype, bankData, and creditData. Also returns bank (the brand/connector name like 'Nubank Empresas' — same shown in the dashboard UI) and connector_id. Note: each account's name is the legal entity that issues the account (e.g. 'Nu Pagamentos S.A. - Instituição de Pagamento'), which is not the same as the brand — when referring to the bank in user-facing text, use bank. OMIT item to list accounts across ALL linked banks at once — the response aggregates every connection's accounts into results, each row tagged with its own bank/connector_id/item_id (use this when the user asks for 'my accounts/cards' without naming a bank). Pass item to target a single bank (response carries bank/connector_id/item_id at the root). CREDIT (credit card) balance: its meaning is CONNECTOR-DEPENDENT — some banks report the current open-bill partial, others the full revolving/installment debt — so do NOT treat balance as 'this month's bill'. The open billing cycle is defined by creditData.balanceCloseDate (when it closes) / balanceDueDate (when it's due). For a standardized open-bill amount and total debt that mean the same across connectors, use openfinance_list_credit_card_bills (open_bill + total_pending_debt, derived from PENDING transactions); closed bills come from that same tool's results. May include a provider_incident block when the Open Finance provider has an OPEN incident affecting a bank in this response: balances and credit limits may be unreliable (incomplete or wrong, e.g. a credit limit near 1,00) even with the connection UPDATED, until the provider recovers. Do not present those values as real. May include an identity_notice when the SAME account (same number) arrives via two connections stamped with DIFFERENT owner/taxNumber: in Open Finance those fields reflect each connection's CONSENT HOLDER (e.g. a joint account consented by both holders), so dedupe by account number before summing balances and do not attribute ownership by owner/taxNumber for those accounts.
Bulk support: accepts item_ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| item | No | ||
| type | No | ||
| item_id | No | ||
| item_ids | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, but the description adds critical behavioral context: credit balance meaning is connector-dependent, provider_incident may make balances unreliable, identity_notice explains deduplication logic, and the distinction between account name and bank brand. This far exceeds annotation scope.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is lengthy but each sentence adds value given the tool's complexity. It front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence and then systematically addresses edge cases (credit balance, provider incidents, identity notices, bulk support). Minor redundancy could be trimmed, but overall well-organized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema exists, so description must detail return values and behaviors. It covers main fields, provider_incident and identity_notice blocks, and credit balance nuances. Missing details: pagination, error states, and explicit parameter usage for 'type' and 'item_id'. Still, for a complex tool with multiple special cases, it is fairly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must explain parameters. It does explain the effect of 'item' vs omitting it, and mentions bulk support with 'item_ids', but does not explicitly describe each parameter's meaning (e.g., 'type' for filtering, 'item_id' vs 'item'). The description partially compensates but lacks structured parameter explanations.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states it returns accounts for a bank connection, distinguishes between BANK and CREDIT types, and lists returned fields (balance, number, type, subtype, bankData, creditData). It also differentiates from siblings like openfinance_list_credit_card_bills by noting where to find standardized bill data. This provides a specific verb+resource scope unlike any sibling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear guidance: 'OMIT item to list accounts across ALL linked banks at once' and 'Pass item to target a single bank'. It also explicitly directs to openfinance_list_credit_card_bills for standardized bill amounts and total debt. This covers both when to use and when to use an alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
openfinance_list_categoriesAReturns Pluggy's transaction category taxonomy (GET /categories), cached for the adapter session. Each entry has id (the categoryId used by openfinance_update_transaction_category), description (English), descriptionTranslated (Portuguese — prefer this for pt-BR users), parentId and parentDescription (the tree parent). Single aggregated response — no batch ids.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it mentions caching per session, single aggregated response with no batch ids, and the structure of each entry (id, description, descriptionTranslated, parentId, parentDescription). Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, and the description complements them effectively.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: three sentences that front-load the main purpose, then detail the response fields, and finally note caching/batch behavior. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (no parameters, read-only, idempotent), the description fully covers what an agent needs: what it returns, caching, use of ids by sibling, and output structure. No gaps are evident.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters (0 params), so the baseline is 4. The description provides value by detailing the output fields (id, description, descriptionTranslated, parentId, parentDescription) which are not covered by an output schema. This extra semantic information helps the agent understand what the tool returns.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it returns the transaction category taxonomy, identifies the underlying API endpoint (GET /categories), and distinguishes from sibling list tools by specifying the resource type. It also mentions the caching behavior and the use of `id` by a related tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides implicit usage guidance by noting that `id` is used by `openfinance_update_transaction_category`, suggesting this tool should be called before that one. It also advises preferring `descriptionTranslated` for pt-BR users. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare with alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
openfinance_list_connectionsAReturns the saved bank connections for this install: connector_id, item_id, bank name, a per-connection reconnect_url, and an add_connection_url to link additional banks via the Open Finance widget. The reconnect_url reopens the widget in UPDATE mode for that EXISTING connection (user re-enters credentials / MFA token and the data refreshes in place) — use it when a connection needs re-authentication (MFA connectors, LOGIN_ERROR, stale non-Open-Finance data). It does NOT consume a connection slot and does NOT require disconnecting first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate safe read operation (readOnlyHint, idempotent, non-destructive). Description adds behavioral details about reconnect_url and add_connection_url, enhancing transparency beyond structured fields.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with core purpose, each sentence adds value. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite no output schema, description completely explains return values and their purposes. Agent can correctly invoke and interpret results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters to document (schema empty), baseline is 4. Description fully covers return value semantics, meeting the need.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it returns saved bank connections with specific fields (connector_id, item_id, bank name, etc.) and distinguishes from sibling list tools like openfinance_list_accounts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly describes when to use the reconnect_url (re-authentication, MFA, LOGIN_ERROR, stale data) and what it does not do (no slot consumption, no disconnect required). Slightly lacks explicit 'when not to use' but provides strong context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
openfinance_list_credit_card_billsAReturns CLOSED credit card bills for a CREDIT-type account: dueDate, totalAmount, minimumPaymentAmount, allowsInstallments, plus payments[] (id, paymentDate, amount, valueType, paymentMode), payments_count, payments_total, finance charges aggregates, and a derived payment_status per bill. IMPORTANT — Brazilian Open Finance semantics: Pluggy does NOT return a paid/status field. The payment goes into the payments[] of the bill whose CYCLE contains the paymentDate (closing ≈ dueDate − 7d): pre-payment before close stays on the bill being paid; payment between close and due, or after due, lands on the NEXT bill. So payments[] on a bill commonly carries the previous bill's payment, NOT the current one's — do NOT assume this bill was paid just because payments[] is non-empty. Use the derived payment_status (PAID | OPEN | PAST_DUE_UNCONFIRMED | PAST_DUE_UNPAID): a bill is PAID when its OWN payments[] (early pre-payment) or ANY newer bill in the payload contains a payment with amount ≈ this bill's totalAmount (±R$0.50). The MOST RECENT bill that's past-due, with no own pre-payment match, cannot be confirmed via cross-bill (the next cycle hasn't closed yet) — it returns PAST_DUE_UNCONFIRMED. NEVER call such a bill 'vencida' categorically; flag that the payment may have been made between close and due and not yet reflected upstream. The full payment_status_legend is returned alongside the results. OPEN BILL & TOTAL DEBT (standardized, derived — OPT-IN): pass include_open_bill:true to ALSO get open_bill (the current not-yet-closed bill, próxima a vencer) and total_pending_debt (saldo devedor total = all pending installments), BOTH derived from PENDING transactions so they mean the same thing across connectors — use these instead of the CREDIT account's balance, whose meaning VARIES by connector (some report the open-bill partial, others the full installment debt). open_bill = { available, method (cycle_dates = real close/due dates | calendar_month_fallback = estimated, confidence:'low'), close_date, due_date, total_amount (net charges − credits), transaction_count }; plus a future_bills[] breakdown per month — LOW-confidence forward projections of PENDING installments (confidence:'low', basis), NOT authoritative bills (for closed months trust the results totalAmount). CONNECTOR ASYMMETRY: where the bank does NOT expose the open bill before closing (only closed bills, no reliable cycle dates), open_bill.available is false with a reason (connector_exposes_no_pending or open_bill_not_published) — that bill isn't retrievable by any endpoint until it closes (upstream limit of the institution's Open Finance feed, not our filter); check the bank app for the current open bill. When per-transaction billId grouping does not reconcile with the bills' totals, a bill_grouping_reliability warning is attached (trust totalAmount, do not sum by billId). Default false (the projection runs an extra accounts+transactions scan, so it's opt-in). The response opens with an account echo block ({ account_id, bank, name, number, type, item_id }) identifying WHICH card/bank these bills belong to. When more than one bank is connected, ALWAYS cross-check the echo against the card you intended to query and name the bank when presenting results — never attribute one bank's bills to another. This tool's results are bill-level summaries — NOT individual transactions, and each bill's totalAmount (from the bank) is the AUTHORITATIVE amount. To see itemized purchases/charges, use openfinance_list_transactions with the CREDIT account_id — but note creditCardMetadata.billId is a per-connector hint that can be sparse/inconsistent (e.g. Nubank), so do NOT reconstruct a bill total by summing transactions by billId. Returns a warning instead of failing if the CREDIT_CARDS product is not enabled.
Bulk support: accepts account_ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| page_size | No | ||
| account_id | Yes | ||
| account_ids | No | ||
| include_open_bill | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, which align with the non-destructive nature. The description adds extensive behavioral context: payment status derivation logic, cross-bill payment matching, open bill generation conditions, connector asymmetry, and reliability warnings. No contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very long and includes many detailed sections. While each section adds necessary value for the complex Brazilian Open Finance semantics, the overall length could be trimmed without losing critical information. It front-loads the main purpose but becomes dense quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (5 parameters, multiple derived fields, no output schema), the description covers all necessary aspects: return fields, derived payment_status, open bill conditions, connector asymmetry, warnings, and cross-references to other tools. It ensures an agent can correctly invoke and interpret results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description bears the burden. It explains include_open_bill and account_ids in detail, and mentions pagination parameters implicitly but does not format or limit info. The required account_id is defined only as 'account_id' without further clarification. Some parameters lack added semantics, but the critical ones are well-covered.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it returns CLOSED credit card bills for a CREDIT-type account, with a list of specific fields. It distinguishes itself from siblings like openfinance_list_transactions and openfinance_get_credit_card_bill by noting appropriate use cases.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool (for bill-level summaries) versus when to use openfinance_list_transactions for itemized purchases. It also warns about not reconstructing totals and gives conditions for open bill availability, including connector asymmetry.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
openfinance_list_investmentsAReturns 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.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| item | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| type | No | ||
| item_id | No | ||
| item_ids | No | ||
| page_size | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes well beyond annotations by detailing return structure, error handling (returns object instead of throwing on 403), and a complex data integrity warning mechanism for mass zeroing. This is valuable context not captured in annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the main purpose and specific asset types, followed by error handling and data integrity details. It is reasonably concise for the complexity, though a bit lengthy. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema and the complexity of parameters, the description adequately covers error handling and data integrity but lacks parameter usage guidance. It is sufficient for basic understanding but incomplete for full agent autonomy.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain parameters like item, page, type, or page_size. Only item_ids is mentioned briefly for batch support. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states it returns the investment portfolio for a connection, listing specific asset types (FIIs, stocks, ETFs, etc.). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like openfinance_list_investment_transactions by focusing on the portfolio overview rather than transactions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving investment data but does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusion criteria or prerequisites. The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
openfinance_list_investment_transactionsAReturns the movement history for a specific investment position: BUY / SELL / TAX / INTEREST / AMORTIZATION / TRANSFER. Each row carries quantity, value, amount, netAmount, agreedRate (treasury), brokerageNumber, and itemized expenses (brokerageFee, incomeTax, settlementFee, custodyFee, stockExchangeFee, etc.). Use after openfinance_list_investments to get the investment_id.
Bulk support: accepts investment_ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| page_size | No | ||
| investment_id | Yes | ||
| investment_ids | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark as readOnly, idempotent, and not destructive. Description adds detail on return fields (quantity, value, expenses breakdown) and the underlying operation. No contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short paragraphs, front-loaded with core purpose and prerequisites. No redundant information. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, description explains return fields adequately. It mentions prerequisite and bulk support. Missing pagination details and explicit return type, but close to complete for a list tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains investment_id and investment_ids, but page and page_size are not described. Partially addresses the gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it returns movement history for investment positions, enumerates transaction types (BUY/SELL/TAX/etc.) and key fields. It distinguishes from sibling 'openfinance_list_investments' by specifying it is used after that tool to get investment_id.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says to use after openfinance_list_investments to get investment_id, and mentions bulk support with investment_ids. Does not give negative guidance or alternatives, but context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
openfinance_list_loansALists loan contracts per bank connection (GET /loans). Pass items as an array of connection selectors (item_id uuid, connector_id, or connector_name) — one entry per connection to fetch; multiple connections are queried sequentially with rate-limit spacing. OMIT items to list loans across ALL linked banks. Returns { results, errors } per connection.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations show readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Description adds behavioral details: sequential queries with rate-limit spacing, return format {results, errors} per connection. No contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, each sentence adds value. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers parameter usage, behavior for multiple connections, and return format completely.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%; description explains that each item is a connection selector (item_id uuid, connector_id, or connector_name), adding meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists loan contracts per bank connection, using GET /loans. It distinguishes from siblings like openfinance_get_loan_detail (for a single loan) by specifying it lists loans per connection.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explains when to pass `items` (for specific connections) vs omit (for all banks). It also mentions sequential querying with rate-limit spacing. However, does not explicitly contrast with sibling list tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
openfinance_list_transactionsAReturns transactions for a bank account (BANK or CREDIT type). For CREDIT (credit card) accounts, this is the ONLY way to get itemized transactions (purchases, subscriptions, etc.). Each credit card transaction MAY carry creditCardMetadata.billId pointing at a bill from openfinance_list_credit_card_bills, but this is a per-connector HINT, not authoritative: some connectors (e.g. Nubank) populate it sparsely (many transactions and installments arrive with no billId) or inconsistently (the same payment tagged to more than one bill). Do NOT reconstruct a bill's total by summing transactions by billId — the bill's own totalAmount from openfinance_list_credit_card_bills is the source of truth. CREDIT PENDING vs POSTED varies by connector: where the bank exposes future-dated status:'PENDING' installments, those represent the OPEN bill plus future bills (future months); where it does NOT, only the last closed bill's POSTED items appear until ~closing. Same query, different coverage per bank (upstream). To get a standardized open-bill total / total debt regardless, use openfinance_list_credit_card_bills (open_bill / total_pending_debt). Supports from/to date filters (ISO YYYY-MM-DD) and an optional keyword filter via search_queries (case- and accent-insensitive substring match against description and merchant name, OR semantics across multiple terms). When search_queries is set the tool aggregates up to 5000 transactions within from/to before filtering — narrow from/to if truncated:true is returned. PAGINATION: OMIT both page and page_size (the default) to get ALL transactions in the from/to range in one call — the tool auto-paginates the upstream and returns them under a single logical page (page:1, totalPages:1), up to a 5000 ceiling (truncated:true + warning if exceeded, then narrow from/to). Passing page and/or page_size switches to MANUAL pagination: you get one page (page_size items, default 50, max 500; page defaults to 1) with the REAL total/totalPages, so page_size:5 alone returns the first 5 with totalPages telling you how many pages remain. On upstream errors, returns { total:0, results:[], warning, error } instead of throwing. detail controls how much per-row data you get (default 'compact' = slim, cheap). Use detail:'rich' to enrich each row (when the bank connector provides it) with merchantInfo (estabelecimento: businessName/razão social, cnpj, cnae, category — useful for auto-classifying spending) and extra creditCardMetadata fields: billId (a per-connector HINT toward the transaction's bill — sparse/inconsistent on some connectors like Nubank, so do NOT sum by it to get a bill total; use the bill's totalAmount instead), purchaseDate, payeeMCC, feeType/feeTypeAdditionalInfo, otherCreditsType/otherCreditsAdditionalInfo. Use detail:'raw' to get the FULL untouched Pluggy transaction object (everything Pluggy returns, un-normalized — heaviest, for when you need a field we don't project). 'rich'/'raw' add tokens per row and coverage varies by bank/Open Finance, so keep the default for normal listings. For the card's statement closing/due dates use openfinance_list_accounts (creditData.balanceCloseDate / balanceDueDate). The response opens with an account echo block ({ account_id, bank, name, number, type, item_id }) identifying WHICH account/bank these transactions belong to. When more than one bank is connected, ALWAYS cross-check the echo against the account you intended to query and name the bank when presenting results — never attribute one bank's transactions to another. If total is 0 for a CREDIT account, check the connection health via openfinance_get_item_status — statusDetail.creditCards.isUpdated: false means the credit card sync failed and a force sync (openfinance_force_sync) or reconnection may be needed. May include a provider_incident block when the Open Finance provider has an OPEN incident affecting a connected bank: transactions may come back incomplete or wrong until the provider recovers, and reconnecting does not fix it.
Bulk support: accepts account_ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| detail | No | ||
| page_size | No | ||
| account_id | Yes | ||
| account_ids | No | ||
| search_queries | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses behaviors beyond annotations: auto-pagination with truncation, error handling (returns warning/error instead of throwing), per-connector variations in credit pending/posted, provider incident blocks, and the need to cross-check account echo. Annotations already state readOnlyHint=true, so no contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear topic sections (pagination, detail, account echo, etc.) and front-loads the main purpose. However, it is somewhat verbose and repeats the billId caution twice. Still, every part earns its place given the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is comprehensive: it covers return structure, pagination behavior, detail levels, error handling, provider incidents, cross-references to related tools, and bulk support. No output schema exists, so the description fully compensates with rich behavioral and usage details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description fully explains each parameter: from/to date format, page/page_size for manual vs auto pagination, detail enum meanings, search_queries behavior, account_id requirement, and account_ids for bulk. This adds significant value beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it returns transactions for bank accounts (BANK or CREDIT) and distinguishes from siblings like openfinance_list_credit_card_bills. It specifies the tool's unique role for credit card itemized transactions and provides context on how it relates to other tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus openfinance_list_credit_card_bills, how to handle credit accounts, pagination strategies, and detail levels. It also warns against using billId to reconstruct totals and advises on checking connection health.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
openfinance_list_transactions_by_itemAConsolidated 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.
| 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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains internal fan-out, truncation at 5000 per account with a flag, provider_incident block, and details on return format (compact vs raw). Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the primary benefit. Every sentence adds value, but it is somewhat dense; minor trimming could improve readability without losing information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, no param schema descriptions), the description is comprehensive: it covers purpose, parameter semantics, return values, limitations (truncation), and error conditions (provider_incident). It provides everything an agent needs to correctly invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: 'item' (connector_id, connector_name, or item_id), 'from'/'to' as ISO dates, granularity defaults, detail options, type filtering, top_n, and bulk via item_ids. This adds meaning that the schema alone does not provide.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Consolidated cash-flow analysis for a whole bank CONNECTION over a period, in ONE call.' It distinguishes from siblings by noting that it resolves accounts internally, avoiding the need to call openfinance_list_accounts first.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit use cases: 'Use this for 'análise anual/mensal', 'fluxo de caixa', 'entradas e saídas', 'maiores gastos/recebimentos'.' It also explains how to target one bank or all banks, but does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or contrast with the sibling openfinance_list_transactions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
openfinance_provider_statusAChecks the LIVE operational status of the Open Finance provider (its public status page) — this is the PROVIDER's health, separate from your own connection's openfinance_get_item_status. Use it whenever data looks incomplete or stale even though a connection shows UPDATED (accounts/transactions/balances missing, a bank not returning everything): it reveals an upstream outage or a known incident on a specific bank/connector, so you can tell a provider-side problem apart from a connection that just needs reconnecting. Returns the global indicator (none/minor/major/critical), degraded components, open incidents, and — when you have banks connected — flags the incidents that affect YOUR connected banks in your_banks_affected.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds detailed behavioral context: it checks a public status page, returns global indicator, degraded components, incidents, and flags affecting connected banks. No contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single well-structured paragraph, front-loaded with the main purpose, and packs significant detail without verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite no output schema, the description fully explains the return values: global indicator, degraded components, open incidents, and affected banks. Complete for a status check tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. Baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool checks the LIVE operational status of the Open Finance provider, using specific verbs and distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'openfinance_get_item_status'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says when to use this tool (when data looks incomplete or stale despite updated connection), and what it differentiates. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' but provides strong contextual guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
openfinance_search_bank_connectorsASearches the available bank connectors by name (pass keywords[], e.g. ['nubank','btg']) and returns, per match: the connector id, whether it's Open Finance or API (access), PF/PJ (audience), the user's already-linked connections (and accounts when include_accounts=true), and a ready connect_url with the bank pre-selected. Some non-Open-Finance credential connectors carry a caveat warning that they don't auto-update (needs periodic manual reconnection) — surface it so the user can prefer the institution's Open Finance connector for automation. Honors the user's plan (a PF plan hides PJ banks; a PJ plan covers BOTH — PF and PJ banks connect and count under the same plan). Call this BEFORE connecting to hand the user a one-click link to the right bank. keywords[] is REQUIRED — without it returns a hint (never dumps the whole catalog).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| keywords | No | ||
| include_accounts | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint). It explains plan-based filtering (PF vs PJ), the caveat warning for non-Open-Finance connectors, and the behavior when keywords are omitted (returns a hint instead of dumping the catalog).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is relatively long but each sentence adds value. It is well-structured, starting with the main function, then return fields, then caveats, plan behavior, usage guidance, and a note about the 'keywords' parameter. Slightly verbose but justified by the complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Without an output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return values (connector id, access, audience, connections, accounts, connect_url) and special cases (caveat, plan filtering, missing keywords). This provides sufficient context for an AI agent to understand the tool's behavior completely.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates. It explains that 'keywords' is an array of bank names (with examples) and that it's REQUIRED, despite the schema not marking it as required. It also explains 'include_accounts' as a boolean to include accounts in the response.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool searches bank connectors by name with specific keywords, and details the returned fields (connector id, access, audience, connections, accounts, connect_url). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'connect' and 'marketplace' which have different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly advises to call this tool BEFORE connecting to provide a one-click link, and mentions preferring Open Finance connectors for automation. While it doesn't name specific alternatives, the context is clear enough for an AI agent to decide when to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
openfinance_update_transaction_categoryAInspectCorrects the category of one or more transactions (PATCH /transactions/:id). Pass items as an array of { transaction_id, category_id } — transaction_id comes from openfinance_list_transactions, category_id from openfinance_list_categories. This overrides Pluggy's automatic categorization AND teaches Pluggy: recategorizing a transaction automatically creates a Category Rule for this client (case-insensitive exact match on the transaction's data), so FUTURE similar transactions are categorized the same way — use this to fix miscategorized transactions and improve categorization accuracy going forward. Batch shape: returns { updated, results: [{ transaction_id, category, categoryId }], errors: [{ id, status, message }] } — per-item errors do not fail the whole batch.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only provide basic hints (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds crucial behavioral details: it overrides automatic categorization, teaches Pluggy by creating Category Rules, details batch behavior with per-item error handling, and specifies that errors don't fail the whole batch.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is somewhat lengthy but every sentence adds value. It is front-loaded with the main action. Slightly more structured formatting could improve readability, but it is efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and 1 parameter, the description covers all necessary context: behavior, response format (updated, results, errors), side effects, and parameter sources. It is fully complete for an agent to understand and invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must fully explain parameters. It thoroughly describes the 'items' array structure, required fields (transaction_id, category_id), and explicitly sources these IDs from sibling tools, adding meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool corrects transaction categories and identifies the HTTP method and resource (PATCH /transactions/:id). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like openfinance_list_transactions and openfinance_list_categories by explaining where to get the IDs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains when to use the tool (fix miscategorized transactions, improve future categorization) and mentions the side effect of creating a Category Rule. It lacks explicit statements of when not to use it, but context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
report_bugAReport a bug, missing feature, or send feedback. Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| context | No | ||
| message | Yes | ||
| conversation | No | [] |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, indicating it is a safe, non-destructive, and idempotent operation. The description adds value by specifying to include conversation array for reproduction but does not elaborate further on behavior beyond what annotations already convey.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences efficiently convey purpose and a usage hint. The description is front-loaded with the core action. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though a slightly more structured breakdown of parameters would improve clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description lacks essential completeness: no information about the response (e.g., confirmation or ticket ID), no emphasis on the required 'message' parameter, and no explanation of the 'context' parameter. For a submission tool with no output schema, more detail is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
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 only mentions the conversation parameter vaguely ('include conversation array'), but provides no details on the required 'message' parameter or the optional 'context' parameter, leaving significant ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool reports bugs, missing features, or sends feedback. It uses a specific verb (report) and resource (bug/feedback), and distinguishes from sibling tools which are predominantly openfinance operations, authentication, or connectivity tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description advises including the conversation array for reproduction, providing clear context on how to use the tool effectively. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives, though sibling tools are unrelated so this is acceptable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
show_versionAShow the current MCP platform and adapter versions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it returns version information, but this is more about content than behavioral context. It does not disclose any non-obvious behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words. Every word contributes to the purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no nested objects, no output schema), the description fully explains what the tool does and what it returns. It is complete for an agent to understand its functionality.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%. According to guidelines, with zero parameters, the baseline score is 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics since there are none.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on authentication, data operations, or other functionalities.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
While the description does not explicitly state when or when not to use this tool, it is self-explanatory as a version info retrieval tool. The context from sibling tools makes its purpose clear, but there are no explicit exclusions or alternative suggestions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
toolkit_infoAReturns the current toolkit state: installed MCPs, their connection status, the accounts connected to each one, and how many catalog tools each exposes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context by specifying exactly what data the state includes (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which is more detailed than the annotations alone.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and packs all relevant details without wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With zero parameters, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description provides sufficient detail about the return contents. It could optionally specify the output format or structure, but the given enumeration is complete enough for a simple status tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter syntax or semantics. Baseline of 4 is appropriate because there is no parameter information to compensate for.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns the current toolkit state, enumerating specific contents: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform specific actions like authenticate or list accounts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for obtaining an overall status overview, but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternative list tools or when not to use it. Context is clear but no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Sign in to create a connector for this server.