Skip to main content
Glama

Player's Bank MCP

openfinance_get_credit_card_bill

Read-onlyIdempotent

Returns bill-level detail for one or more credit card bills by id (GET /bills/:id): dueDate, billClosingDate (when the cycle closed — the boundary that defines which purchases belong to this bill), totalAmount, financeCharges and payments[] (id, paymentDate, amount, valueType, paymentMode). ITEMIZED PURCHASES (OPT-IN): the bank's bill payload has no transactions in it — they live on the card ACCOUNT. Pass include_transactions:true (plus account_id of the credit card, since the bill itself carries no account reference) and each row also gets transactions[], transactions_count, transactions_sum and reconciles_with_total, already matched to that bill. Always check transactions_basis: bill_id = exact (the bank tagged each transaction with this bill — the normal case for CLOSED bills), date_window = ESTIMATE (confidence:'low', window echoed in transactions_window) used when the connector tags no billId or the bill is still open (PENDING lines get no billId until the cycle closes), unavailable = no link possible. Opt-in because it costs an extra full transaction scan of the account. Whatever the basis, the bill's own totalAmount is authoritative — do NOT rebuild it by summing transactions. Without the opt-in the response carries a transactions_hint; you can also fetch them yourself via openfinance_list_transactions with the credit card account_id and a from/to range ending at billClosingDate. 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.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bill_idsYes
account_idNo
transactions_detailNo
include_transactionsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Added
  2. Removed
  3. Added
  4. Removed
  5. Added
  6. Removed
  7. Added
  8. Removed
  9. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / account_id
      Added value: +{
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / properties / include_transactions
      Added value: +{
      +  "type": "boolean"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / properties / transactions_detail
      Added value: +{
      +  "enum": [
      +    "compact",
      +    "rich",
      +    "raw"
      +  ],
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
  10. Added
  11. Removed
  12. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description far exceeds the annotations by explaining behavioral nuances: `totalAmount` is authoritative and should not be reconstructed, `payments[]` typically reflects the previous bill rather than current-bill payment, Pluggy returns no paid/status field, and the opt-in transactions path triggers an extra full account scan. It also documents the three `transactions_basis` modes. These are material runtime behaviors the annotations alone do not convey.

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 long and dense, but every sentence contributes critical operational detail such as opt-in costs, authoritative totals, fallback transaction-fetching, and payment-status caveats. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and returns, though the wall of text could have been better organized with bullets or section breaks.

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

Completeness5/5

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

There is no output schema, so the description must define the response shape, and it does: result fields, transactions summary fields, `transactions_basis`, `transactions_window`, `transactions_hint`, and the `{results, errors}` batch envelope. It also gives enough context about Brazilian Open Finance and sibling tool alternatives for an agent to call this correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries most of the parameter burden and succeeds for `bill_ids`, `account_id`, and `include_transactions`, including relationships among them. However, `transactions_detail` and its enum values (`compact`, `rich`, `raw`) are never explained, which is a notable gap for one of the four parameters.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Returns bill-level detail for one or more credit card bills by id (GET /bills/:id)' and enumerates concrete fields such as dueDate, billClosingDate, totalAmount, and payments[]. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from related bill-listing and transaction-listing tools by focusing on single-bill lookups by id.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: discover bill ids via openfinance_list_credit_card_bills first, prefer that sibling for derived paid status, and fetch transactions separately via openfinance_list_transactions if not opting in. It also clarifies when `transactions_basis` is exact versus estimated, giving agents clear decision prerequisites.

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.