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?
The description provides behavioral context beyond annotations: it revokes consent, deletes data, makes data unavailable, and returns a reconnection URL. This complements the destructiveHint without contradicting it.
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?
Three concise sentences: action, consequence, return value. No wasted words; information is front-loaded and well-structured.
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 one parameter, the description covers the action, side effects, and return value. The only gap is the lack of explicit parameter documentation, which is minor given the tool's low complexity.
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 input schema has a single required parameter 'item' with zero description coverage. The description mentions 'for a specific bank' but does not map this to the parameter explicitly, leaving ambiguity.
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 Open Finance consent and deletes connection data for a specific bank, using specific verbs and a clear resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like connect or force_sync by focusing on disconnection.
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 when to use (to disconnect a bank) and notes a reconnection URL is returned, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance.
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 tools map clearly to a distinct openfinance resource or action (accounts, transactions, bills, investments, loans, connections, provider health), and the platform utilities are a separate family. The only realistically confusable pairs are openfinance_list_transactions vs openfinance_list_transactions_by_item and openfinance_list_accounts vs openfinance_get_accounts_detail, but the descriptions draw sharp boundaries between them.
The 19 openfinance_* tools follow a strong openfinance_<verb>_<noun> convention, with only minor exceptions like openfinance_provider_status and openfinance_list_transactions_by_item. The six platform tools mix bare verbs (authenticate, connect), nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), and verb_noun (report_bug, show_version), but they are clearly a separate utility layer.
25 tools sits at the top of the 'feels heavy' band. The number is defensible for a full Open Finance data product plus platform management tools, but an agent is exposed to a lot of surface area, and the same server mixes a banking-data adapter with a marketplace/utility layer.
The openfinance surface covers the full lifecycle: search/connect/reconnect/disconnect banks, force-sync, item status, provider incidents, accounts, balances, transactions per account and per connection, credit-card bills with paid-status derivation, investments and investment transactions, loans, loan detail, and transaction categorization. Platform tools cover auth, connection status, toolkit state, version, bug reporting, and marketplace operations, so there are no obvious dead ends.