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 mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by detailing the return format for two scenarios (all connected vs missing credentials), going beyond the 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 two sentences, about 40 words, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every phrase is informative with no redundancy.
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 output schema and simple behavior, the description covers the two main states of the connection. It could mention error handling or other edge cases for completeness, but it suffices for a straightforward status check.
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 trivially 100%. Per guidelines, a baseline of 4 is appropriate since no parameter info is needed, and the description adds context about output behavior.
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 returns connection status and URLs, using a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'authenticate' by focusing on connection status rather than authentication flow.
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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (to check connection status) and what to expect in different states (all connected vs missing credentials). It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the contrast with siblings like 'authenticate' is evident.
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 have clearly distinct purposes (e.g., force_sync vs get_item_status, list_accounts vs get_accounts_detail). Minor overlap exists between list_transactions and list_transactions_by_item, and between get_account_balance and list_accounts (which also contains balance), but descriptions clarify when each should be used.
All openfinance_* tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (list, get, force_sync, disconnect, update). The generic tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) are also lowercase with underscores where needed, though they lack the openfinance prefix. No mixing of camelCase or chaotic patterns, so mostly consistent with minor deviation.
25 tools is on the heavy side for a single server, but justified given the breadth of Open Finance operations (accounts, transactions, bills, loans, investments, connections, categories, provider status). The count is borderline heavy but not excessive for the domain, though some consolidation could be possible (e.g., merging get_account_balance into list_accounts).
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle for financial data: listing, getting details, forcing syncs, disconnecting, updating categories, checking provider status, and handling investments/loans/bills. No obvious dead ends; even connection management includes search, connect URLs, and re-authentication flows. The set appears comprehensive for its intended purpose.