List integrations (banks, payments, payroll, time tracking, shipping, accounting sync, ecommerce, CRM).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | Filter by rollout status. | |
| country | No | Only return integrations available in this country (or global). | |
| category | No | Filter to one integration category. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, pagination, or rate limits. Only states listing, which is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Very concise and front-loaded with the verb and resource. However, it could be slightly expanded without losing efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Does not describe the output format or any usage context. Given the absence of an output schema, the description should provide more completeness about what the tool returns.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented. The description adds minor context by listing example categories, but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List integrations' with specific examples of categories, making it easy to understand the tool's purpose. It distinguishes from sibling tools which are analytical or other list tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_articles' or 'list_credit_packs'. Lacks any context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Tools are largely distinct, each targeting a specific report type (balance sheet, P&L, trial balance) or functionality. Some overlap exists between QBO and Xero variants, but descriptions clearly differentiate them. Overall, an agent can reliably select the right tool.
Most tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., analyze_balance_sheet, list_articles). A few exceptions like free_tier_eligibility and how_munimji_helps break the pattern but are still readable and predictable.
With 29 tools, the count is on the higher side but justified by the domain's breadth (financial analysis, compliance, migration, pricing, etc.). Some reduction through parameterization (e.g., merging QBO/Xero variants) would improve scope.
The tool surface covers key areas: financial statement analysis, compliance, migration estimation, feature/pricing info, and partner programs. Missing are direct data manipulation tools (e.g., create/edit journal entries), which may be intentional for a read-only analysis agent.