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 declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, indicating safe behavior. The description adds value by detailing state-dependent behavior (e.g., returning connect_url when credentials are missing), which goes beyond what annotations provide. It does not contradict any 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?
The description is extremely concise, using two sentences to convey the primary purpose and key scenarios. Every sentence adds value, and the main action ('Returns connection status and URLs') is front-loaded. No wasted 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?
Given no parameters and no output schema, the description covers two important states (all connected vs credentials missing). However, it does not mention intermediate states (e.g., partial connections) or error conditions. Still, for a simple status check, it is fairly complete.
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 the schema coverage is 100% (no properties). According to the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when there are no parameters. The description does not need to add parameter semantics.
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.' It explains two distinct scenarios (all providers connected vs credentials missing), which provides a specific, actionable understanding of the tool's purpose. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on status retrieval rather than authentication or other actions.
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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings, such as 'authenticate' or other connection-related tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or alternatives. The usage context is only implied by the tool's functionality.
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.