Skip to main content
Glama

Banco Sofisa 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

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations say `readOnlyHint=true`, `idempotent=true`, `destructive=false`, but the description much more than repeats those. It states the underlying provider lacks transactions on the credit card payload, that `totalAmount` is authoritative and must not be rebuilt by summing transactions, and that `payments[]` relates to a previous bill in Brazilian Open Finance, plus the cost of opt-in transactions. This materially sets the correct mental model for an agent.

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, dense, and not flashy, but it is organied into purpose, transactions opt-in, authoritative data, and paid-status caveatotes, all of which are necessary for correct call in this domain. It could shed some parethesis nesting and repetitive references, but every piece does useful work.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the desription carries a critical burden and fully deliver: it gives bill rowfields, transactions[] behavior, the `transactions_basis` values with confidence/meaning, `{results, errors}` batch shape, and explicit guidance for the paid-status question. For a billing tool with these nuances, no crucial call-time decision is missing.

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 coverage is 0% so the burden falls on the description, and it explains `bill_ids` (array, discover before use), `include_transactions` (needs `account_id` because the bill has no account ref), and the semantics of `account_id`. However, the `transactions_detail` enum (compact/rich/raw) is never explained, leaving a user without guidance as to its effect. Overall strong, but incomplete.

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?

It uses a specific verb+resource (returns bill-level detail by id) and scopes the user to GET /bills/:id while enumerating the exact fields and structures that will exist. It also distinguishes itself naturally from `openfinance_list_credit_card_bills` and `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.

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description gives explicit operational guidance: discover bill IDs with `openfinance_list_credit_card_bills`? pass `include_transactions:true` with `account_id` only when itemized purchases are needed; consult `transactiona_basis` to interpret confidence; and use `openfinance_list_credit_card_bills` when paid status is desired because this tool provides no status basis. This is excellent alternative-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

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

The openfinance_* tools are cleanly separated by resource and action (accounts, transactions, bills, investments, loans, connections), and the list-versus-get patterns are distinguishable. The main weak spots are the broad 'marketplace' tool, which bundles many sub-actions, and mild overlap between list_accounts/get_account_balance and list_transactions/list_transactions_by_item.

Naming Consistency4/5

The banking tools follow a consistent openfinance_<verb>_<noun> convention, with list_/get_ prefixes used predictably. A few deviations like 'provider_status' (missing a verb) and non-prefixed platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, toolkit_info) keep it from being perfectly uniform.

Tool Count4/5

25 tools is on the heavy side, but the Open Finance domain justifies a wide surface: balances, transactions, bills, investments, loans, connections, sync, and provider health each need their own entry points. The platform/meta tools add some bulk but are individually useful.

Completeness5/5

The Open Finance surface covers the full read lifecycle: discover/search connectors, connect via URLs, list and inspect connections, force sync, check provider/connection status, and read accounts, balances, transactions, credit card bills, investments, and loans. It also supports the one clearly expected write operation (transaction category correction), leaving no obvious dead ends in the core domain.