Returns the current toolkit state: installed MCPs, their connection status, the accounts connected to each one, and how many catalog tools each exposes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds contextual detail about what the state includes but does not disclose potential latency, caching, or authorization limitations. It adds some value beyond annotations but not substantially.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the return value and lists the key components. No wasted words; every clause adds meaningful detail.
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?
With no parameters and no output schema, the description fully specifies what the tool returns (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This is complete for a simple state-inspection tool, especially given the strong annotations.
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, so there is nothing to explain. The schema coverage is 100% by definition, and the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description correctly focuses on the output rather than inputs.
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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and a clear resource ('current toolkit state'), then enumerates the exact contents: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This fully distinguishes it from siblings like show_version or openfinance_provider_status.
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 usage for checking overall toolkit status, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives (e.g., openfinance_provider_status for provider-specific status). No exclusions or alternative guidance are provided, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.
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.