finwire.pl - Polish financial data

Budget of a Polish municipality: spending, debt, EU funds

get_municipal_budget

Read-onlyIdempotent

Use for the budget of one municipality: what it spends money on, its debt and its EU funds. Pieniądze Twojej gminy (finwire_gmina_spending_per_capita): for one Polish municipality (gmina) or city with county rights - executed spending per resident by category (schools, social help, family benefits and nurseries, roads, waste and water, administration, culture, sport, municipal housing, fire brigades, interest on debt) vs neighbouring municipalities, municipalities of similar type and size and Poland (Ministry of Finance Rb-28S, last full year and current year to date), investment share, debt per resident at the end of the latest quarter (Rb-Z), EU funding per resident 2021-2027 and 2014-2020 with the largest projects (only projects located in one municipality; natural persons are not named). Without a municipality: national figures; with metric: ranking.

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": "get_municipal_budget"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`family`	No	Ranking of municipalities (default) or of cities with county rights.
`metric`	No	Ranking instead of one municipality: total, invest, debt, eu or a category (oswiata, pomoc, rodzina, drogi, komunalne, administracja, kultura, sport, mieszkania, bezpieczenstwo, dlug, pozostale).
`municipality`	No	Municipality name (e.g. "Kraków", "Bielsk Podlaski") or 7-digit TERYT code. Omit for national figures or a ranking.

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 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare a safe, read-only, idempotent, closed-world operation, so the description only needs to add context — and it does: data sources (Ministry of Finance Rb-28S and Rb-Z), the time windows (last full year plus current year to date, latest quarter for debt), and two privacy/scope limits (only EU projects located in a single municipality; natural persons are not named). It does not discuss rate limits or result size, which keeps it below a 5.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The lead sentence is well front-loaded, but the body is a dense run-on that embeds a Polish product name and a long parenthetical re-listing spending categories already present in the metric enum. Sentence length and nesting bury the mode-switching rule that matters most for invocation.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description still covers data provenance, coverage periods, comparison baselines, and privacy scoping. What remains is some ambiguity about how family, metric and municipality combine to select national versus ranking output.

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 all three parameters are already fully documented, and the enum values of metric and family are enumerated in the schema. The description's contribution is largely restating the mode logic ("Without a municipality: national figures; with metric: ranking"), which slightly clarifies parameter interaction but is not additive enough to exceed the baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The opening sentence states a specific verb and resource: the budget of one municipality, covering spending, debt and EU funds. It is easy to tell apart from generic macro tools in the catalog, but it never names a sibling such as get_public_debt or get_investment_funds, so an agent must infer that those are national/market-level rather than municipal.

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 opens with "Use for..." and then describes the three operating modes: a named municipality returns per-resident figures, omitting the municipality returns national aggregates, and supplying a metric returns a ranking. There are no explicit when-not conditions or named alternatives, 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.