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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds meaningful context by specifying exactly what 'toolkit state' includes (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent anticipate the return content.
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 a single sentence that front-loads the verb 'Returns', then uses a colon and comma-separated list to enumerate the components. It is concise with no extraneous words.
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 zero-parameter, read-only info tool, the description adequately conveys what information is returned. It does not provide a detailed return schema, but the enumeration of key elements is sufficient given the tool's simplicity and the presence of safety annotations.
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 clarify. The baseline of 4 applies because there is no ambiguity in invocation.
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 the specific verb 'Returns' with a clear resource, 'the current toolkit state', and enumerates its components (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This distinguishes it from siblings like show_version, which likely focuses on version info.
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 inspecting toolkit state but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use it or how it relates to similar tools like openfinance_provider_status or show_version, so the guidance is only implied from the described purpose.
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 openfinance_* tools target distinct resource/action pairs, but there is real overlap among list_accounts, get_accounts_detail, and get_account_balance, as well as between list_transactions and list_transactions_by_item, and between get_credit_card_bill and list_credit_card_bills. The descriptions are detailed enough to usually resolve ambiguity, but the number of near-overlapping read/status tools makes mis-selection plausible.
The 21 openfinance_* tools follow a clear openfinance_<verb>_<noun> convention with predictable verbs like list, get, update, force, disconnect, and search. The non-prefixed platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketlace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) break the pattern but are few enough to keep the naming mostly coherent.
25 tools is at the heavy end for the stated banking domain, and several could reasonably be merged: get_account_balance/get_accounts_detail/list_accounts and list_transactions/list_transactions_by_item overlap in purpose. The breadth of resources covered accounts, cards, loans, investments, connections, and provider health helps justify the count, but it still feels slightly bloated.
The Open Finance workflow is thoroughly covered: connect discover, force sync, status checks, accounts, balances, transactions, credit-card bills, loans, investments, category correction, disconnection, and provider health. Edge cases like stale data, consent errors, provider incidents, and cross-connector asymmetries are explicitly handled, leaving no obvious dead ends for an agent.