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 declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds value by detailing exactly what data is returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog counts), which is useful beyond the structured annotations. It does not mention auth or rate limits, but for a read-only state tool this is acceptable.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the primary action ('Returns the current toolkit state') and followed by clarifying specifics. Every word earns its place; no fluff or redundancy.
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 (no params, no output schema), the description fully covers what the tool returns and its scope. It is complete enough for an agent to know exactly what to expect, and the sibling tools provide sufficient context for the term 'MCPs.'
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 and an empty schema (100% coverage), so the baseline for 0 params applies. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter details and adds no unnecessary param information.
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: 'Returns the current toolkit state' with specifics (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool count). It uses a precise verb and resource, and no sibling tool appears to duplicate this function.
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 implies usage for checking toolkit state but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide any context like 'use this before connecting.' It lacks the explicit guidance seen in high-scoring examples, but the purpose itself makes the intended use reasonably clear.
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.