finwire.pl - Polish financial data

Check the BFG deposit guarantee of a bank

check_bfg_guarantee

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check whether a Polish bank or credit union (SKOK) is on the list of entities covered by the deposit guarantee of the Bankowy Fundusz Gwarancyjny (BFG), by name, trade name (e.g. "Inteligo") or website. Without query: counts of commercial banks, cooperative banks, credit unions and entities in bankruptcy (series finwire_bfg_guarantee_monitor) with history and latest changes, and the guarantee limit (EUR 100,000 per depositor per bank) with its PLN equivalent at the latest NBP rate. Branches of banks from other EU countries are covered by their home-country scheme, so no match for them is expected.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "check_bfg_guarantee"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Entries to return, default 10.
`query`	No	Bank or credit union name (min. 3 characters), trade name or website.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes
`asOf`	No
`data`	No
`title`	Yes
`source`	Yes
`docsUrl`	Yes
`license`	Yes
`summary`	Yes
`citation`	Yes
`datasetId`	Yes
`sourceUrl`	No
`truncated`	No
`serverDate`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description then adds substantial behavior the annotations cannot: the no-query path returns counts per entity type plus a series name, history and latest changes, and the EUR 100,000 limit converted to PLN at the latest NBP rate. The EU-branch caveat is especially valuable because it tells the agent how to interpret a no-match.

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 structure is front-loaded: the core lookup purpose comes first, then the no-query behavior, then the caveat. It is dense but each clause carries information; minor tightening is possible in the long second sentence enumerating entity types.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still explains the aggregate mode's return shape (counts, history, latest changes, guarantee limit), which is what an agent needs to choose between modes. Combined with the EU-branch caveat, nothing material is missing for a two-parameter lookup tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3: the schema already documents query (name/trade name/website, min. 3 chars) and limit (1-30, default 10). The description reinforces the accepted query forms and gives the 'Inteligo' trade-name example, but never explains what limit controls or how it interacts with the count-vs-list modes.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: checking whether a Polish bank or SKOK is on the BFG deposit-guarantee list, searchable by name, trade name or website. That is clearly distinct from sibling tools such as check_knf_warnings, and the description also defines the second mode (no query -> coverage counts plus limit).

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 clearly how to use the tool with a query and what to expect without one, so an agent can pick a mode without inference. It also pre-empts a common false negative by noting that EU home-country branches should not be expected to match. It does not name a sibling alternative for the related KNF-warning question, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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

All finwire.pl - Polish financial data tools Inspect

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.