Returns the current toolkit state: installed MCPs, their connection status, the accounts connected to each one, and how many catalog tools each exposes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true; the description adds useful behavioral context by specifying exactly what state is returned (connections, accounts, tool counts), going beyond the annotation signals.
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?
A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and enumerates the key contents of the response without extraneous detail.
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 parameterless, read-only informational tool, the description fully captures what the agent needs to know: it explains the output categories (MCPs, connections, accounts, tool counts). No output schema exists, but the description covers the essential return semantics.
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, so there are no parameter semantics to explain; the description appropriately focuses on the return value, and the empty schema is fully covered by the description's implicit handling of no inputs.
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 uses a clear verb ('Returns') and specifies the resource ('current toolkit state') with concrete details (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, tool counts), clearly distinguishing it from financial-operation siblings like openfinance_list_accounts or authenticate.
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?
Although it doesn't name alternatives, the description makes it clear this is the tool for checking the toolkit's installed MCPs and connections; the read-only and idempotent annotations reinforce that it's a status check, providing enough contextual guidance for when to use it.
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.