Skip to main content
Glama
jmendozapuche

latam-fintech-synthetic-data

generate_latam_financial_data

Read-onlyIdempotent

Generate privacy-safe synthetic users, savings goals, and transactions for Latin American fintech testing, QA, demos, and ML pipelines. Produce reproducible datasets without PII to support agent evaluation and data workflows.

Instructions

Generate privacy-safe synthetic financial data for Latin America.

Use this tool when you need synthetic financial users, savings goals and
transactions for Latin American fintech testing, QA, demos,
machine-learning experiments, data pipelines or agent evaluation. The output
is fully synthetic: it is sampled from aggregate distributions and contains
no personally identifiable information and no real records.

Args:
    users: Number of synthetic users to generate. Use 1 to 200.
    seed: Random seed for reproducible datasets. The same seed and
        parameters always return the same dataset.
    countries: Optional list of Latin American countries to include,
        for example ["Colombia", "Mexico"].
    start_date: Optional ISO start date of the generated period,
        for example "2023-01-01".
    end_date: Optional ISO end date of the generated period,
        for example "2024-12-31".

Returns:
    Synthetic users, linked savings goals, linked transactions,
    and dataset row counts.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
seedNo
usersNo
end_dateNo
countriesNo
start_dateNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Behavior5/5

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: it states the output is 'fully synthetic', 'sampled from aggregate distributions', contains 'no personally identifiable information and no real records', and that 'the same seed and parameters always return the same dataset.' This goes far beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations by explaining what the data actually is and how reproducibility works.

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 well-structured with a summary sentence, a usage paragraph, a structured Args list, and a Returns note. It is slightly verbose in the usage paragraph (listing many use cases) but every sentence contributes value, and the most important information (what it does, key constraints) is front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (five optional parameters, one sibling tool, output schema available), the description is complete. It explains the purpose, when to use it, all parameters with examples, the synthetic nature, and the return shape. There are no obvious gaps that would prevent an agent from invoking the tool correctly.

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

Parameters5/5

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully carries the burden of explaining all five parameters. It provides detailed meaning and usage for each: users range '1 to 200', seed guarantees reproducibility, countries gives an example list, and both date parameters specify ISO format with examples. This is exemplary compensation for the absence of schema descriptions.

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 a clear statement of what the tool does: 'Generate privacy-safe synthetic financial data for Latin America.' It then specifies the exact resources produced (financial users, savings goals, transactions), which distinguishes it from the sibling describe_latam_synth_dataset that describes rather than generates.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this tool when you need synthetic financial users, savings goals and transactions for Latin American fintech testing, QA, demos...' This provides clear context, but it does not mention any alternative tool or describe situations where it should NOT be used, so it falls just short of full marks.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/jmendozapuche/latam-synth'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server