Skip to main content
Glama

Banco Sofisa MCP

by io.github.mcp-dir

openfinance_list_investments

Read-onlyIdempotent

Returns 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.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
itemNo
pageNo
typeNo
item_idNo
item_idsNo
page_sizeNo

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly and idempotent. The description adds critical behavioral details: graceful error handling (returns empty result on 403), data integrity warnings for mass zeroing, cross-checking transaction history, and flagging suspect rows. This goes well 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is structured with clear sections and lists, but it is somewhat verbose. Key information is front-loaded, and every sentence provides value. A slight reduction in length could improve conciseness.

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?

Given 6 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description should cover more. It explains error handling and data integrity but lacks details on parameter roles and the full response structure beyond a partial example. Adequate but with gaps.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema has no parameter descriptions. The tool description only mentions bulk support via item_ids but does not explain the purpose of parameters like item, page, type, or page_size. Thus, it adds minimal value to parameter understanding.

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 the tool returns investment portfolios for a connection, listing specific asset types. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like openfinance_list_accounts and openfinance_list_transactions by focusing solely on investments.

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 implies usage for investment data but does not explicitly explain when to use this tool over alternatives such as openfinance_list_investment_transactions. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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

All Banco Sofisa 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

A4.3/5.0
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.

Resources