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 indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by detailing the two possible return states (authenticated:true vs connect_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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, no wasted words. Efficiently conveys key information.
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 status check with no output schema, the description covers the two main scenarios (all connected vs missing credentials). It might not cover other partial states or errors, but given the read-only nature, it is likely sufficient.
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?
No parameters exist, so schema coverage is effectively 100%. The description does not need to add parameter information beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 4 is exceeded because no parameters simplifies the need.
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, explains two distinct states (all connected vs missing credentials). It is specific about the resource (connection status) and verb (returns). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'authenticate' or 'openfinance_list_connections', which could be confused.
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 use for checking overall connection health but does not specify when to use this vs alternatives like 'authenticate' or 'openfinance_list_connections'. No explicit when-not or recommendations are given.
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_ tools are mostly distinct by resource/action, but there are several overlapping pairs: list_accounts vs get_accounts_detail, list_credit_card_bills vs get_credit_card_bill, list_transactions vs list_transactions_by_item, and connect vs toolkit_info vs openfinance_list_connections. The descriptions help disambiguate, but an agent could still misselect between these related tools.
The core banking tools consistently follow an openfinance_<verb>_<noun> pattern, which is a strong and readable convention. The generic platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) break that pattern and use mixed naming styles, creating two distinct naming tiers within the same server.
25 tools sits at the upper borderline of what feels reasonable for one server. The Open Finance domain justifies many read/query tools, but the inclusion of platform meta-tools like marketplace, connect, toolkit_info, report_bug, and show_version inflates the count beyond a tightly focused bank-data scope.
The Open Finance surface is largely complete: connectors, sync, disconnect, accounts, balances, transactions, categorization, credit card bills, loans, investments, and provider status are all covered. Minor gaps exist, such as the lack of a dedicated investment detail endpoint and limited consent/permission introspection, but agents can work around these with the existing tools.