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 mark this as read-only and idempotent. The description adds value by detailing the conditional return payload: authenticated:true with empty pending[] when all connected, and connect_url plus per-install URLs when credentials are missing. This explains behavior beyond the annotation flags.
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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause adds necessary information about the conditional responses. 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 zero-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description fully covers the possible return states (connected vs missing credentials) and the key fields (authenticated, pending, connect_url). This is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool returns.
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 the input schema is empty with 100% coverage. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, the description is not required to add parameter details, and it doesn't, so it's fully sufficient.
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 clearly identifies the resource as 'connection status and URLs.' It also differentiates from sibling tools like 'authenticate' by focusing on status rather than performing authentication, and from 'openfinance_list_connections' by providing status/URLs rather than a detailed list.
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 this tool is for checking connection state, and contrasts scenarios (all connected vs missing credentials). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it lacks explicit exclusions but provides clear context.
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_* tools are mostly distinct by resource and action, but several pairs create ambiguity: openfinance_get_item_status vs openfinance_provider_status, openfinance_list_transactions vs openfinance_list_transactions_by_item, and the monolithic marketplace tool overlaps with top-level report_bug and toolkit_info. Descriptions do clarify the differences, but an agent selecting by name alone could easily choose the wrong tool.
The openfinance_* family follows a mostly consistent verb_noun pattern (list_accounts, get_balance, update_transaction_category), which is good. However, top-level tools mix bare verbs, nouns, and verb_noun forms (authenticate, connect, marketplace, show_version, toolkit_info), and openfinance_provider_status breaks the verb-first pattern. The naming is readable but not uniform across the whole set.
25 tools sits right at the heavy boundary, though the server covers two domains: mcp.ai platform management and Open Finance data access. Some tools could be consolidated (list_transactions vs list_transactions_by_item, get_item_status vs provider_status), and marketplace is a monolithic super-tool that bundles many sub-capabilities. Overall the count is defensible but slightly bloated.
The Open Finance surface is thorough: accounts, balances, transactions, credit card bills, loans, investments, connection management, sync, category updates, and provider health are all covered. Minor gaps exist, such as no investment detail beyond the list and connection actions being URL-based rather than first-class tools, but there are no dead ends for typical read/aggregation workflows.