Revokes the Open Finance consent for a specific bank and deletes the connection data. The bank's data will no longer be available. Returns an add_connection_url to re-connect if needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| item | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, indicating irreversible action. The description adds behavioral details: revokes consent, deletes data, and returns a reconnection URL. This goes beyond annotations by explaining the post-action state and the ability to reconnect, which helps an agent understand consequences.
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 consists of two concise sentences that efficiently convey the core action and outcome. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with the key verb 'Revokes'. Every sentence adds value.
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 destructive tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the action and result adequately. However, it lacks parameter documentation, reducing completeness. The return value (add_connection_url) is noted, which is helpful for post-action steps.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage and no explanation of the 'item' parameter in the description, the agent has no guidance on what to pass. The description does not mention the parameter at all. For a single required string parameter, the description fails to add meaning 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 the tool's function: revokes Open Finance consent for a specific bank, deletes connection data, and makes bank data unavailable. It also notes the return of an add_connection_url for reconnection. This distinguishes it from siblings like openfinance_list_connections or openfinance_force_sync.
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?
Description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify prerequisites, cautionary notes, or scenarios where other tools might be more appropriate (e.g., pausing vs. disconnecting). The only hint is the destructive nature, but no direct comparison with siblings.
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: openfinance_* tools cover specific resources (accounts, transactions, bills, loans, investments) with clear boundaries. Some overlap exists between list_transactions and list_transactions_by_item, and between status/sync tools (get_item_status, force_sync, provider_status), but descriptions are detailed enough to guide selection.
The openfinance_* prefix provides strong consistency for the bulk of tools, with clear verb_noun patterns (list, get, update, force_sync). The platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, etc.) break the pattern but are few and their names are intuitive. Overall, minor mixing of conventions but readable.
25 tools is on the higher side but appropriate for a comprehensive Open Finance and platform management server. The count includes both data access (accounts, transactions, bills, loans, investments) and platform utilities (authentication, connection state, marketplace). No redundant tools; each serves a clear purpose.
The surface covers the core read operations for connected banks (accounts, transactions, bills, loans, investments), connection management (sync, status, disconnect), and category correction. Minor gaps include no get-transaction-by-id and no update for account metadata, but these are not critical for the typical use case of a banking data aggregator.