Skip to main content
Glama

openfinance_list_transactions_by_item

Read-onlyIdempotent

Consolidated cash-flow analysis for a whole bank CONNECTION over a period, in ONE call. Resolves the connection's accounts internally and fans out their transactions, so you do NOT need to call openfinance_list_accounts first nor carry account_id uuids between calls. Pass item (connector_id, connector_name or item_id) to target one bank, or OMIT it to analyze ALL linked banks at once. from/to are ISO dates (YYYY-MM-DD). Default granularity:'monthly' returns a COMPACT summary (no raw rows): total entradas, saídas, saldo_liquido, monthly evolution (por_mes), and top_despesas/top_recebimentos (largest N each), plus a per-account breakdown (by_account). Use this for 'análise anual/mensal', 'fluxo de caixa', 'entradas e saídas', 'maiores gastos/recebimentos'. Set granularity:'raw' to ALSO get every consolidated transaction (heavier — only when itemized rows are needed); combine with detail:'rich' to enrich those rows with merchantInfo (cnpj/cnae/businessName/category) + extra creditCardMetadata (billId, purchaseDate, fees), or detail:'raw' for the full untouched Pluggy object per row, when the connector provides them. type filters BANK or CREDIT accounts. On a connection with many transactions the scan caps at 5000/account and flags truncated:true. May include a provider_incident block when the Open Finance provider has an OPEN incident affecting a connected bank: the totals/rows may be incomplete or wrong until the provider recovers, and reconnecting does not fix it.

Bulk support: accepts item_ids for batched execution.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toNo
fromNo
itemNo
typeNo
top_nNo
detailNo
item_idNo
item_idsNo
granularityNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. 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"
      +}
  2. Added
  3. Removed
  4. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds significant value by disclosing key behaviors: per-account transaction cap of 5000 with a truncated flag, the provider_incident block indicating potentially incomplete data, and the behavior of bulk mode. This goes well beyond what annotations provide.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and provides detailed information in a coherent flow. It is somewhat dense and runs into a single paragraph, but every sentence adds value. It could be improved by breaking into sections (e.g., overview, parameters, output, edge cases), but overall it is efficient.

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 complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, 0% schema coverage), the description is remarkably complete. It describes the output structure (compact summary with fields like total entradas, por_mes, top_despesas, etc.), explains edge cases (truncated, provider incident), and covers all major usage scenarios including bulk mode. No output schema is needed as the verbal description suffices.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the purpose of most parameters: item, item_ids, from/to (ISO dates), granularity (monthly vs raw), detail (rich/raw), type, and top_n (implied through 'largest N'). However, the item_id parameter is not mentioned in the description, leaving a small gap.

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 clearly states the tool does consolidated cash-flow analysis for a bank connection in one call, with specific verb 'analyze' and resource 'connection transactions'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting that it internally resolves accounts, so there is no need to call openfinance_list_accounts first.

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 provides clear guidance on when to use the tool (e.g., for annual/monthly analysis, cash flow, top expenses) and when to use different granularities and details. It mentions bulk support and the ability to omit item to analyze all linked banks. However, it does not explicitly compare to the similar sibling openfinance_list_transactions, so some context is implicit.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose. The Open Finance tools are granular (e.g., list vs get vs force_sync for different resources), and the marketplace, authentication, and utility tools do not overlap. No two tools could be easily confused.

Naming Consistency4/5

The Open Finance tools consistently use the 'openfinance_' prefix followed by a verb_noun pattern (e.g., list_accounts, get_balance). Other tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace) use simple verb names, which is a minor deviation but still clear and predictable.

Tool Count4/5

25 tools is on the higher end, but the server covers a broad domain (marketplace + comprehensive Open Finance operations). Each tool serves a specific function, and the count is justified by the depth of functionality.

Completeness5/5

The toolset provides full lifecycle coverage for the Open Finance domain: list, get, sync, update, transactions, categories, investments, loans, credit cards, and connections. The marketplace tool is also feature-rich. No obvious gaps for the intended purpose.