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 and destructiveHint=false, so safety is clear. The description adds value by detailing the response structure (authenticated field, pending array, connect_urls). This goes beyond the annotations by describing the tool's output behavior in two conditions.
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 two succinct sentences that front-load the core purpose ('Returns connection status and URLs'). Every word adds value, with no redundancy or wasted text.
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?
Given no parameters, a read-only annotation, and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior for a simple status check tool. It details both success and credential-missing outcomes. It could mention error handling or rate limits, but for its complexity, it is adequately complete.
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%, so baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter information because none exist. It correctly implies no input is required.
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 returns connection status and URLs. It explains the two distinct scenarios (all connected vs. missing credentials), making the tool's function unambiguous. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'authenticate', the behavior is specific enough that purpose is unmistakable.
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 explains what happens in two states (all connected vs. missing credentials), but doesn't explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'authenticate' or other openfinance tools. The context signals suggest it's for checking connection status, but explicit usage guidance is absent.
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 distinct resources (accounts, transactions, bills, loans, investments, connections, categories), so the core surface is clearly separated. However, several pairs could be confused at first glance: list_transactions vs list_transactions_by_item (both return transactions but at different scopes), get_credit_card_bill vs list_credit_card_bills (bill detail vs list of bills), and get_account_balance vs get_accounts_detail (balance snapshot vs full account object). The detailed descriptions help, but the overlap is nontrivial.
The openfinance_* tools follow a consistent pattern (list_, get_, update_, search_, force_sync, provider_status, disconnect_bank), all using snake_case with a clear domain prefix. However, the general platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) have no such prefix or consistent verb_noun pattern, mixing the convention. The finance subset is strong, but the overall set isn't uniform.
At 25 tools, this is at the upper boundary of acceptable for a broad financial domain covering connections, accounts, transactions, credit cards, loans, investments, categories, and provider health. Each tool adds real capability, so it doesn't feel bloated, but it's heavier than typical and pushes the borderline between well-scoped and too many.
The surface covers the Open Finance lifecycle thoroughly: connection management (list, reconnect, force sync, disconnect, provider status), account/balance reads, transaction listing (with filters, pagination, rich detail), credit card bills (closed and open/debt), loans, investments, category management, and a connector search. Obvious gaps like a tool for creating connections are handled via widget URLs rather than an API call, so the coverage feels adequate. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit tool for updating a connection's credentials beyond reconnect URLs), but nothing that would block core workflows.