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?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true. The description adds valuable context: consent revocation, data deletion, unavailability of data, and a reconnect URL. However, it could mention potential side effects (e.g., impact on shared accounts or historical data retention).
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 three sentences totaling ~69 words. It front-loads the main action and includes the return value. No unnecessary information.
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 destructive action with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the action and return value but misses a critical parameter explanation. It also lacks details on reversibility (though implies via reconnect URL) and any confirmation steps.
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 schema has one parameter 'item' with 0% coverage (no description). The description does not explain what 'item' is (e.g., bank ID, connection ID). With low schema coverage, the description must compensate, but it fails to do so.
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 consent and deletes connection data for a specific bank, making data unavailable. It also mentions the return of a reconnect URL, adding specificity. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like openfinance_list_connections or openfinance_force_sync.
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 disconnecting a bank but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., pausing without deleting). No contraindications or prerequisites are provided.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose. Even overlapping-looking tools like list_transactions vs list_transactions_by_item are clearly differentiated (per-account vs consolidated per-connection), and get vs list variants follow standard conventions. The marketplace tool bundles multiple actions but is its own meta-tool. No two tools appear to do the same thing.
The openfinance_ prefix provides a consistent pattern for banking operations, with clear get/list/update/force_sync verbs. A few non-prefixed meta tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) break the pattern, but they represent different functional domains and are still readable. Overall the convention is predictable.
At 25 tools, this is on the heavy side per the calibration guidelines (16-25 feels heavy). However, the breadth of Open Finance resources (accounts, transactions, investments, loans, credit cards, connections, plus meta operations) largely justifies the count. It's borderline and could benefit from consolidation, but it's not excessive.
The tool surface covers the domain comprehensively: listing and getting accounts, transactions, investments, loans, credit card bills, connections, status, sync, category management, and provider health. Missing operations are minor (e.g., no explicit 'get single transaction' but list covers it; no create/update on banking data besides category and disconnect). Core workflows are fully supported.