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 provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds important behavioral details: sequential querying with rate-limit spacing and the return format of {results, errors} per connection. No contradiction with 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?
The description is concise with two sentences, front-loading the main purpose and then providing essential details. No redundant or extraneous content.
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?
Despite no output schema, the description explains the return format and rate-limit behavior. For a list tool with a single optional parameter, the description covers all necessary context for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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 only one parameter 'items' with no description and 0% coverage. The description compensates fully by explaining that each array entry is a connection selector (item_id uuid, connector_id, or connector_name) and that one entry corresponds to one connection to fetch. This adds significant 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 that the tool lists loan contracts per bank connection, specifies the HTTP endpoint (GET /loans), and distinguishes two modes (with or without the 'items' parameter). This makes the purpose specific and differentiates it from siblings like openfinance_get_loan_detail.
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 use the 'items' parameter (for specific connections) and when to omit it (for all linked banks), and mentions sequential querying with rate-limit spacing. It does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or suggest alternatives, but the context is clear enough.
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.