Skip to main content
Glama

Latam Validate

by io.github.pipeworx-io
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Brasil Banks

brasil_banks
Read-onlyIdempotent

List Brazilian banks (COMPE code, ISPB, and name) from the central-bank registry, optionally filtered by name or code. Use to resolve a bank code from a boleto or PIX/TED transfer to the institution name, e.g. code 1 → Banco do Brasil, 260 → Nubank.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeNoExact COMPE bank code to look up, e.g. 341 for Itaú.
limitNoMax results when listing/filtering (default 25).
searchNoFilter by bank name substring (case-insensitive), e.g. "nubank" or "itau".

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "search": "nubank"
+  },
+  {
+    "code": 341
+  }
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false. Description adds that data comes from central-bank registry but no additional behavioral details (rate limits, freshness). No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences: first states purpose with fields, second gives usage example. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.

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?

For a simple lookup tool with 3 optional parameters and no output schema, description lists returned fields (COMPE, ISPB, name) and gives examples. Could mention ISPB definition or default limit, but adequate.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds real-world examples (code 1 → Banco do Brasil) and explains usage pattern (optional filter by name/code), providing extra value beyond schema.

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?

Description clearly states it lists Brazilian banks with specific fields (COMPE, ISPB, name) and gives concrete examples (code 1 → Banco do Brasil). It distinguishes from sibling tools (no other bank lookup exists).

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?

Explicitly says 'Use to resolve a bank code from a boleto or PIX/TED transfer'. Provides clear context for when to use. No explicit when-not or alternatives, but siblings don't overlap, so it's adequate.

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

All Latam Validate toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources