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, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by disclosing exactly what state information is returned, which goes beyond the bare 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?
A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then enumerates the return contents. No filler or redundant phrases.
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 fully explains what the agent will receive. Since there is no output schema, listing the expected fields (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts) is sufficient.
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?
With zero parameters, the schema is trivially complete (100% coverage). The baseline of 4 applies, and there is no parameter ambiguity to clarify.
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 a specific verb ('Returns') and names the exact resource ('current toolkit state'), listing concrete elements: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. It clearly distinguishes this informational tool from the operational sibling tools.
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 context clearly implies this is the tool to call when an agent needs a snapshot of the toolkit's connectivity and installed services. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but its unique informational scope makes the usage obvious.
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.