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?
Discloses sequential querying with rate-limit spacing and per-connection output format {results, errors}. Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent; the description adds valuable behavioral details 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, front-loaded with purpose, each sentence adds essential information. No redundancy or unnecessary words.
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?
Complete for a simple list tool: covers input, behavior (sequential with rate-limiting), and output shape. No output schema exists, so description suffices.
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, the description fully explains the items parameter: acceptable selector types (item_id uuid, connector_id, connector_name) and that each entry maps to one connection. Adds significant meaning.
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?
Explicitly states 'Lists loan contracts per bank connection' with the GET endpoint, and the optional items parameter distinguishes between fetching for specific connections vs all. Differentiates from sibling openfinance_get_loan_detail which handles single loans.
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?
Clear guidance on when to include items (for specific connections) and when to omit (for all). Does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context implies alternatives for single loan detail.
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.
Most tools target distinct resources and operations (balance, accounts, loans, investments, connections, provider status), but credit card bill handling is split across three overlapping tools (get_credit_card_bill, list_credit_card_bills, list_transactions), which could cause misselection. The platform-level tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.) are clearly distinct from the finance tools.
The openfinance_* tools mostly follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (list_accounts, get_account_balance, update_transaction_category), but a few deviate (openfinance_provider_status, openfinance_search_bank_connectors). The non-prefixed platform tools break the pattern entirely with mixed styles: verbs (connect, authenticate), nouns (marketplace), and noun_verb (report_bug, show_version).
At 25 tools, this sits at the high end of reasonable scope. Each Open Finance tool maps to a specific endpoint or workflow, and the platform tools are needed for the MCP meta-layer, but the sheer number makes the set feel heavy and harder to navigate.
The Open Finance surface is thorough: connection lifecycle, accounts, balances, transactions, credit card bills, loans, investments, categories, and provider health. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no webhook management, no bulk CSV export), but core workflows are well covered and there are no dead ends.