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 indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying the exact return values (authenticated, pending, connect_url) and how they vary by connection state, without contradicting 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 extremely concise with two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's behavior in two key states. No unnecessary words or repetition.
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?
The description covers the main scenarios (all connected vs missing credentials) adequately for a status check tool with no input parameters and no output schema. It could potentially mention error states or edge cases, but overall it is complete enough for most use cases.
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 no parameters, so the schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter information; it correctly focuses on the return behavior. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate.
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, and distinguishes two scenarios (all providers connected vs missing credentials). While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, the purpose is clear and specific.
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 by describing what is returned under different conditions, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'authenticate' or 'openfinance_provider_status'.
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.
The openfinance_* family is cleanly separated by resource and action, and tricky pairs like list_accounts vs get_account_balance and list_transactions vs list_transactions_by_item are explicitly cross-referenced in descriptions. However, marketplace bundles a large set of sub-actions, and connect/toolkit_info partially overlap on reporting connection state, so a couple of boundaries are fuzzy.
The openfinance_* tools consistently follow a verb_resource pattern with snake_case, which is highly predictable. The generic platform tools mostly fit the same style, but marketplace and toolkit_info are noun-only names, and openfinance_provider_status also breaks the verb pattern, so it is not perfectly uniform.
At 25 tools, this server falls at the heavy end of the borderline range. The many openfinance_* list/get tools are individually justified for the financial domain, but adding platform tools like marketplace, connect, toolkit_info, and show_version makes the overall surface larger than a minimal server needs.
The financial surface is remarkably thorough: accounts, transactions, credit card bills, loans, investments, categories, connection lifecycle, sync, and provider health are all covered with list/get and update paths where applicable. The platform side also covers auth, connection status, marketplace discovery/execution, versioning, and bug reporting, leaving no obvious dead ends.