Revokes the Open Finance consent for a specific bank and deletes the connection data. The bank's data will no longer be available. Returns an add_connection_url to re-connect if needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| item | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description accurately reflects the destructive nature consistent with annotations (destructiveHint=true), explicitly stating it deletes data and data becomes unavailable. It also discloses the return of a reconnection URL. No contradiction with 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?
Two sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the primary action, followed by consequences and return value.
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?
Considering simple tool with 1 param and no output schema, the description covers action, side effects, and reconnection option. However, lacking parameter explanation leaves a gap; otherwise adequate.
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 description mentions 'for a specific bank' but does not explain the sole parameter 'item' (e.g., bank ID or connection identifier). With 0% schema description coverage, the description should clarify the parameter's meaning and format.
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 'Revokes the Open Finance consent... and deletes the connection data', specifying the resource (bank) and action (disconnect). It distinguishes from sibling tools like openfinance_force_sync (sync) or openfinance_get_* (read) by focusing on removal.
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 explains the result of using the tool ('data will no longer be available') and mentions a reconnection possibility via add_connection_url. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives like openfinance_list_connections for reviewing connections first.
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.