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?
Adds behavioral context beyond annotations: sequential per-connection querying with rate-limit spacing, and return format `{ results, errors }`. Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent, so description complements without contradiction.
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 sentences with front-loaded purpose. Concise yet complete for the tool's simplicity. No redundant 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?
Given one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers input usage, behavior, and return structure. Adequate for a list operation with clear context.
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?
Input schema provides only a generic array of strings with 0% coverage. Description fully explains the `items` parameter: it accepts connection selectors (item_id, connector_id, or connector_name) and describes the different behavior when absent. This compensates for the bare 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?
Description clearly states 'Lists loan contracts per bank connection' with the HTTP method and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like openfinance_get_loan_detail. The verb 'List' and resource 'loan contracts' are specific and unambiguous.
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?
Explains when to pass `items` (array of connection selectors) and when to omit it (list across all banks), including sequential rate-limit behavior. However, no explicit mention of when not to use it or reference to alternative tools.
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.