Returns connection status and URLs. When all providers are connected, returns authenticated:true and empty pending[]. When credentials are missing, returns connect_url for the toolkit and per-install URLs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by detailing the tool's response in different states (all connected vs missing credentials), including the presence of connect_url and per-install URLs. No contradictions with annotations.
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 concise: two sentences that are front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by specific scenarios. Every sentence adds value with no waste.
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?
For a simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the two main states and gives hints about the response structure (authenticated, pending, connect_url). It does not fully describe the return format, but it is adequate given the tool's simplicity and the context from annotations.
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 0 parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. Per guidelines, baseline is 4 when no parameters exist. The description adds no parameter information because none are needed.
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 returns connection status and URLs, with specific details about two scenarios (all connected vs missing credentials). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'authenticate' or 'openfinance_list_connections' by focusing on a simple status check.
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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (to check connection status) and what output to expect in different states. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternative tools, which would make it a 5.
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.
The openfinance_* family is mostly well-differentiated by resource type, but several tools overlap in purpose: openfinance_get_account_balance, openfinance_get_accounts_detail, and openfinance_list_accounts all return account/balance data, and openfinance_list_transactions versus openfinance_list_transactions_by_item have similar scopes. The marketplace tool also bundles many sub-actions (search, invoke, install, subscribe, report_bug, prompt library) into one tool, and duplicates the standalone report_bug tool. Detailed descriptions help, but an agent could easily misselect among the account and transaction variants.
Naming is largely consistent: the finance tools follow a clear openfinance_verb_noun pattern (list_accounts, get_account_balance, force_sync, update_transaction_category). There are minor singular/plural inconsistencies (get_account_balance vs get_accounts_detail, get_credit_card_bill vs list_credit_card_bills) and generic platform verbs like authenticate/connect/marketplace that follow a different style, but the overall pattern is predictable and readable.
25 tools is at the upper boundary of what feels manageable for a server covering platform management, marketplace operations, and a broad Open Finance data domain. The count is defensible given the many resource types (accounts, transactions, bills, loans, investments, connections), but it is heavy and the marketplace tool alone packs a dozen sub-capabilities into one entry, making the surface feel larger than 25 discrete tools.
The Open Finance surface is quite complete: connection lifecycle (list, connect, disconnect, force sync, status, provider status), account and balance reads, transactions with categorization support, credit card bills with payment status, loans, investments, and investment transactions. Platform concerns like authentication, versioning, toolkit state, marketplace search/install/invoke, and bug reporting are also covered, leaving no obvious dead ends for the server's stated purpose.