Lists loan contracts per bank connection (GET /loans). Pass items as an array of connection selectors (item_id uuid, connector_id, or connector_name) — one entry per connection to fetch; multiple connections are queried sequentially with rate-limit spacing. OMIT items to list loans across ALL linked banks. Returns { results, errors } per connection.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral traits: sequential querying with rate-limit spacing and return format `{ results, errors }` per connection. No contradictions.
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 (3 sentences), front-loaded with the core function, and well-structured. Every sentence adds value with no waste.
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 list tool with 1 parameter, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description is complete. It covers purpose, parameter semantics, behavior, and return format.
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 0% description coverage, so the description compensates well. It explains `items` as an array of connection selectors (item_id uuid, connector_id, or connector_name) and describes behavior when omitted, adding meaning beyond the schema.
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 lists loan contracts per bank connection, referencing the GET /loans endpoint. It distinguishes itself from siblings like openfinance_get_loan_detail by focusing on listing, not details, and specifying connection-level operation.
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 explicitly explains when to omit `items` (list all banks) and when to pass it (specific connections). It implies usage context but does not explicitly compare with sibling tools like openfinance_list_accounts.
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.