Skip to main content
Glama

Rico MCP

by io.github.mcp-dir

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

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and idempotent, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: the opt-in scan cost, transactions_basis semantics, the authoritative nature of totalAmount, the payments[] cycle caveat, and the warning about whether payments imply paid status. This goes far beyond the minimal annotation coverage.

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 but every major section adds genuine decision value: when to opt in, how to interpret basis values, what not to recompute, and how to avoid misreading payments[]. The main purpose is front-loaded, though a somewhat tighter structure could have made the details easier to consume.

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?

For a tool with complex optional behavior, no output schema, and 0% schema parameter coverage, the description covers the return shape, batch error shape, estimated vs exact transaction matching, direct alternatives, and common pitfalls. This is a complete agent-facing contract.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It explains bill_ids as an array needing discovery, clarifies what include_transactions does, and explains why account_id is needed. However, transactions_detail with its compact/rich/raw enum is never described, leaving an optional but meaningful parameter unexplained.

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)'. It names concrete fields and the bill vs. transaction boundary, which distinguishes it clearly from listing all bills or fetching transactions.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly tells the agent when to use the optional transactions mode, how to discover bill_ids via openfinance_list_credit_card_bills, and to prefer openfinance_list_credit_card_bills for paid status. This provides both positive usage and clear routing to alternatives.

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

All Rico MCP toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, especially the openfinance_* family, but there is some overlap: openfinance_list_transactions and openfinance_list_transactions_by_item both cover transaction listing (though the latter is aggregated by connection), and openfinance_get_account_balance vs openfinance_list_accounts both return balance info. Descriptions are detailed enough to guide selection, so ambiguity is limited but present.

Naming Consistency4/5

The 19 openfinance_* tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (list_accounts, get_balance, force_sync). The remaining generic tools (connect, authenticate, marketplace, report_bug, etc.) don't share the prefix but use clear verb-style names. Two conventions exist, but within each group naming is predictable and readable.

Tool Count3/5

25 tools is at the high end but supports the dual scope: platform management (connect, auth, marketplace) and comprehensive Open Finance data access (19 tools). The count feels slightly heavy, especially with the massive marketplace tool that bundles many actions into one, but it's justified by the breadth of the financial domain.

Completeness4/5

The Open Finance surface is quite complete: accounts, balances, transactions, bills, loans, investments, categories, connections, sync, and provider status are all covered. Missing minor operations like updating categories is present, but there is no obvious gap like missing update/delete for transactions (not applicable). The platform side is minimal but sufficient for auth and info.

Resources