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 declare readOnlyHint:true, idempotentHint:true, and destructiveHint:false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context by detailing the two possible response scenarios (connected vs missing credentials), which goes 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 long, front-loads the purpose, and each sentence adds essential information. There is no waste.
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 simple zero-parameter status check tool without an output schema, the description fully explains what is returned in both normal and error states. It is complete and leaves no ambiguity.
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 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and no additional parameter information is necessary.
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 it distinguishes between two states: when all providers are connected (authenticated:true, empty pending[]) and when credentials are missing (returns connect_url). This provides a specific verb and resource with clear output behavior, differentiating it from sibling tools like '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?
The description implies the tool should be used to check connection status, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. However, given the context of sibling tools like 'authenticate', the usage context is clear enough.
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, especially the openfinance_* family, but there is some overlap: openfinance_list_transactions and openfinance_list_transactions_by_item both cover transaction listing (though the latter is aggregated by connection), and openfinance_get_account_balance vs openfinance_list_accounts both return balance info. Descriptions are detailed enough to guide selection, so ambiguity is limited but present.
The 19 openfinance_* tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (list_accounts, get_balance, force_sync). The remaining generic tools (connect, authenticate, marketplace, report_bug, etc.) don't share the prefix but use clear verb-style names. Two conventions exist, but within each group naming is predictable and readable.
25 tools is at the high end but supports the dual scope: platform management (connect, auth, marketplace) and comprehensive Open Finance data access (19 tools). The count feels slightly heavy, especially with the massive marketplace tool that bundles many actions into one, but it's justified by the breadth of the financial domain.
The Open Finance surface is quite complete: accounts, balances, transactions, bills, loans, investments, categories, connections, sync, and provider status are all covered. Missing minor operations like updating categories is present, but there is no obvious gap like missing update/delete for transactions (not applicable). The platform side is minimal but sufficient for auth and info.