Skip to main content
Glama

Stone Pagamentos 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

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. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / item_id
      Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / item_ids
      Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
  10. Added
  11. Removed
  12. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint/idempotent/destructive-false, but the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: returning {total:0, results:[], warning} on 403/upstream errors, mass-zeroing detection, transaction-history cross-checking, integrity flags, and the instruction not to treat suspect zeroed balances as real R$0. This far exceeds what annotations 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 but structured with a front-loaded purpose, a field list, an error-behavior note, a clearly labeled DATA INTEGRITY section, and a bulk-support note. Every section adds meaningful operational context, though the length is above the minimum necessary.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the description compensates by detailing return row fields, error fallback, and data-integrity flags. However, pagination and filter parameters (page, page_size, type) are never mentioned, and the connection parameter mapping to 'item' is left implicit, leaving some gaps for a complex listing tool.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It only explains item_ids for bulk support; item, page, page_size, type, and item_id are left entirely to naming inference.

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 'Returns the investment portfolio for a connection' and enumerates the asset classes and per-row fields, giving a specific verb, resource, and scope. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling openfinance_list_investment_transactions, which covers transaction history rather than positions.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It states the tool is for 'a connection (broker or bank with INVESTMENTS product enabled)' and describes the intended fallback when INVESTMENTS is not enabled. It does not explicitly name alternatives like list_investment_transactions, but the 'portfolio' versus 'transactions' distinction is clear from context.

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

All Stone Pagamentos 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, especially within the openfinance_* group (list vs get vs sync vs status). A few potential overlaps exist (e.g., openfinance_list_transactions vs openfinance_list_transactions_by_item, openfinance_get_account_balance vs openfinance_list_accounts), but descriptions are detailed enough to guide correct selection.

Naming Consistency4/5

The openfinance_* tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., openfinance_list_accounts, openfinance_get_item_status). However, non-openfinance tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, toolkit_info) use a different style, and one tool (openfinance_list_transactions_by_item) breaks the pattern slightly. Overall readable and predictable within the primary domain.

Tool Count3/5

With 25 tools, the count is on the heavy side per the calibration rubric (16-25 feels heavy). The server covers a broad financial data domain, which justifies the number, but it may present a steep learning curve and potential overwhelm for agents.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface is comprehensive for read-only Open Finance data access: accounts, transactions, balances, bills, loans, investments, category management, connection lifecycle, and status monitoring. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct payment initiation, no investment transaction creation), but for the stated purpose of data and analysis, coverage is strong.

Resources