MCP.AI for IDE agents (Cursor, etc.): log in in the browser, copy the access token. Best: add it to this server's config as a header Authorization: Bearer <token> for a permanent, non-expiring connection. Or paste it here for a session-only login: call with { token: "" } after the user pastes, or with no args to get the link.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes two login methods and token handling beyond annotations. Explains permanent config vs session-only paste. Annotations already indicate idempotency and non-destructiveness, and description adds authentication-specific behavior.
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?
Concise and well-structured: first sentence states purpose, then explains two usage scenarios. No unnecessary words; 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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. Covers all relevant aspects: authentication flow, token options, and session persistence.
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 one parameter 'token' with no description. Description explains token is a JWT from browser and that omitting it returns a link. Adds essential meaning beyond schema for a tool with 0% schema coverage.
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 it is for authentication: logging in via browser, copying token, and either setting permanent config or pasting token for session. It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on token-based authentication.
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?
Provides clear usage: call with no args to get login link, or with token to authenticate. Compares permanent vs session methods. However, lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs siblings like 'connect'.
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 openfinance_* tools target a distinct resource and action, and the descriptions carefully separate overlapping endpoints like openfinance_list_transactions vs openfinance_list_transactions_by_item and openfinance_get_credit_card_bill vs openfinance_list_credit_card_bills. The main ambiguity risk is the broad marketplace mega-tool, but its many sub-capabilities are explicitly enumerated.
Tool names consistently use snake_case with a strong openfinance_ prefix and verb-led patterns like list_, get_, update_, disconnect_, and force_sync. Minor deviations exist: openfinance_provider_status lacks a verb, openfinance_get_accounts_detail is awkwardly pluralized, and the platform tools (connect, marketplace, authenticate) break from the prefix pattern.
At 25 tools, the server sits at the heavy end of the appropriate range. The Open Finance domain is complex enough to justify most entries, but the inclusion of platform-level tools like marketplace, authenticate, connect, and toolkit_info makes the overall surface feel denser and less focused than a pure banking-data server.
The set provides strong coverage of the Open Finance lifecycle: connections, sync/status, accounts, balances, transactions, credit card bills, loans, investments, category management, and provider health. Minor gaps exist, such as no dedicated investment-detail-by-id tool and no way to set custom connection labels, but these are workable and do not create critical dead ends.