Revokes the Open Finance consent for a specific bank and deletes the connection data. The bank's data will no longer be available. Returns an add_connection_url to re-connect if needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| item | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate destructiveHint: true, and the description adds context: it revokes consent, deletes data, and returns a re-connection URL. This goes beyond the annotation flag and informs the agent of the data impact.
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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the primary action. It could be slightly more structured but efficiently conveys the essential 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?
The description covers the main effect and return value but omits details about the parameter and response structure. For a simple tool with no output schema, this is adequate but leaves gaps for a first-time invoker.
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 single required parameter 'item' has no description in the schema or the tool description. The description implies it identifies the bank but does not specify format or examples, which is critical for correct invocation.
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 revokes consent and deletes connection data for a specific bank, making the bank's data unavailable. It also mentions a return value, distinguishing it from other sibling tools.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., openfinance_list_connections or openfinance_get_item_status). The description does not mention prerequisites or situations to avoid using it.
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.