Skip to main content
Glama

openfinance_get_accounts_detail

Read-onlyIdempotent

Returns 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.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
account_idsYes

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare read-only and idempotent. The description adds critical transparency about provider_incident blocks causing unreliable data, and instructs not to present those values as real. This goes beyond annotations.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is concise and well-structured, front-loading the main purpose, then parameter instruction, batch shape, and warning. No wasted words.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description covers core functionality, parameter constraints, batch response, and a data reliability warning. However, with no output schema, it lacks details on the full return structure beyond creditData.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The only parameter, account_ids, is explained only as an array of 1-50, with no description in the schema. The tool description does not explain what these IDs represent or their format, leaving ambiguity.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it returns full account objects including extended creditData per ID, specifies the HTTP endpoint, and mentions the batch response shape. This distinguishes it from sibling list tools by focusing on detailed retrieval.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description tells how to pass account_ids (1-50) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus openfinance_list_accounts. The provider_incident warning provides context on interpreting results, but not on tool selection.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each openfinance_* tool targets a distinct resource (account, transaction, bill, loan, investment) with a clear action (get/list/update/force_sync). The administrative tools (connect, authenticate, report_bug) are clearly separate. No two tools appear to perform the same function.

Naming Consistency4/5

The openfinance_* tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_account_balance, list_transactions, update_transaction_category). Minor deviations like openfinance_provider_status (lacks a verb) and openfinance_force_sync (verb phrase) slightly break the pattern, but the overall convention is predictable.

Tool Count4/5

25 tools is on the higher end but appropriate for a comprehensive Open Finance server covering accounts, transactions, bills, loans, investments, connections, and administration. Each tool has a distinct purpose and none feel redundant.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface is complete for the domain: it covers connection management (connect/disconnect/force sync/status), account and transaction queries, credit card bills, loans, investments, and transaction categorization, plus admin utilities. No obvious gaps that would block typical workflows.