Returns the current toolkit state: installed MCPs, their connection status, the accounts connected to each one, and how many catalog tools each exposes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable detail about the return content (installed MCPs, statuses, accounts, tool counts) that goes beyond the annotations, giving the agent a concrete expectation of the output. It does not mention any potential side effects or caveats, but for a read-only state inspection tool, this is sufficient.
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?
The description is a single, tightly packed sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and then enumerates specific data points. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or extraneous detail.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, read-only semantics, no output schema), the description fully captures what the tool does and what it returns. Since the return value is explicitly described in the description, the absence of an output schema does not create a completeness gap.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema already fully defines the input (an empty object). The description adds no parameter semantics, but with no parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate per the rubric.
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 the tool's function with a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('current toolkit state'), enumerating exactly what information is provided (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tools count). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on specific financial operations, making its purpose unambiguous.
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?
The description implicitly conveys that this tool is for inspecting the toolkit's overall state rather than performing specific actions, which is clear context for an agent. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria, so it falls short of the top score.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action, with clear separation between general server utilities (authenticate, connect, marketplace) and the openfinance_* family (get/list/search/update per domain). No two tools appear to overlap: list_transactions vs list_transactions_by_item are differentiated by granularity, and get_item_status vs provider_status by scope. The marketplace tool, while broad, is explicitly named and described, so it doesn't cause ambiguity.
All 20 openfinance_* tools follow a strict verb_noun snake_case pattern (list_accounts, get_account_balance, force_sync, update_transaction_category, etc.). The five general tools also use snake_case and clear names, maintaining consistency across the set. No mixing of conventions or inconsistent verb styles.
At 25 tools, the set is on the higher end but well-justified for a platform that aggregates Open Finance data and provides a marketplace. The 20 openfinance tools cover distinct banking operations (accounts, transactions, bills, loans, investments, connections, sync, status, search, categories), each addressing a specific need. The 5 general tools handle authentication, connection status, and platform info. No obvious trivial or redundant tools; each earns its place.
The tool surface is comprehensive for the stated domain: CRUD-like coverage across financial resources (list/get for accounts, transactions, bills, loans, investments), plus state management (force_sync, disconnect, update_category) and ecosystem support (search_connectors, provider_status, marketplace). It also includes utilities like authenticate, connect, and version/bug reporting. No missing operations that would cause agent failures; the set covers connection lifecycle, data retrieval, and even API diagnostics.