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=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe, read-only operation. The description adds behavioral context such as returning URLs and the distinction between connected and missing credentials states, adding value beyond 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?
Two sentences, no wasted words. The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and then provides conditional behavior. Highly efficient.
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 no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main behaviors (all connected vs missing credentials). It does not mention error conditions or rate limits, but given the read-only nature and annotations, it is mostly complete. The lack of output schema is mitigated by describing return values.
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 schema coverage is 100% (empty schema), so the description does not need to explain parameters. It compensates by describing the return values in different scenarios, which aids the agent in understanding the output even without an output 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 the tool returns connection status and URLs. It specifies behavior for two scenarios (all providers connected vs missing credentials). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'authenticate' or 'openfinance_list_connections', missing some clarity on when to use this specific tool.
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 provides context on what to expect under different conditions (all providers connected vs missing credentials), implying when to check status. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to use 'authenticate' or 'openfinance_list_connections' instead.
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.
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose: accounts, transactions, credit card bills, loans, investments, connections, sync, categories, provider status, and platform meta-tools are all separable. Even the two transaction tools differ (per-account list vs consolidated analysis) and the two status tools differ (connection vs provider health).
The openfinance_* prefix is consistently applied across the financial domain, and most follow a verb_noun pattern (list_accounts, get_balance, update_category). However, there are non-prefixed tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, toolkit_info) and one outlier like openfinance_provider_status (noun instead of verb) that slightly break the pattern.
25 tools is at the upper boundary of what feels heavy for a single server, even for a comprehensive financial aggregation toolkit. The number is justified by the breadth of domains covered (accounts, credit, loans, investments, connections, platform features), but it requires careful agent selection and might be better split into separate servers.
The surface covers the full financial data lifecycle: listing and fetching details for all asset types, updating transaction categories, managing connections (list, sync, disconnect, reauth), checking provider health, and searching connectors. There are no obvious dead ends—every domain has read and appropriate write/update operations.