Lists loan contracts per bank connection (GET /loans). Pass items as an array of connection selectors (item_id uuid, connector_id, or connector_name) — one entry per connection to fetch; multiple connections are queried sequentially with rate-limit spacing. OMIT items to list loans across ALL linked banks. Returns { results, errors } per connection.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds sequential execution, rate-limiting, and return structure of `{ results, errors }` per connection, providing valuable behavioral context beyond 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?
Three sentences with front-loaded purpose. No wasted words, but includes the endpoint detail (GET /loans) which is redundant with name. Otherwise efficient.
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 a single optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context on usage and return format. No pagination details, but reasonable for a list tool with rate-limit spacing mentioned.
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 has 0% description coverage. Description fully compensates by defining `items` as connection selectors (item_id, connector_id, connector_name), explaining one per connection and sequential behavior. Adds critical meaning absent from 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 the tool lists loan contracts per bank connection, specifying the endpoint. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like openfinance_get_loan_detail, which targets a single loan.
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?
Explicitly explains when to pass `items` (for specific connections) and when to omit it (all linked banks). Describes sequential querying with rate-limit spacing. Does not directly contrast with get_loan_detail but implies difference via scope.
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.