Lists loan contracts per bank connection (GET /loans). Pass items as an array of connection selectors (item_id uuid, connector_id, or connector_name) — one entry per connection to fetch; multiple connections are queried sequentially with rate-limit spacing. OMIT items to list loans across ALL linked banks. Returns { results, errors } per connection.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses that multiple connections are queried sequentially with rate-limit spacing and that the return shape is `{ results, errors }` per connection. This gives the user useful behavioral expectations without contradicting 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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by parameter usage and return shape. No redundant or filler content; every sentence adds 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?
Given no output schema, the description still tells the user what to expect (`{ results, errors }` per connection). It covers the key aspects needed to invoke the tool correctly: selector types, optional vs mandatory usage, and rate-limit behavior. Sufficient for a read-only list operation.
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 input schema provides no description for `items` (0% coverage), but the description fully explains that it is an array of connection selectors (item_id, connector_id, or connector_name) with one entry per connection. This completely compensates for the schema's lack of detail.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Lists loan contracts per bank connection (GET /loans)'. This clearly identifies the action and scope, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like openfinance_get_loan_detail, which is for individual loan details.
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?
Provides clear usage instructions: pass `items` for specific connections, omit to list all linked banks. It explains the selector types and sequential rate-limit behavior. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative tool for detail-level queries, so it misses a direct 'when not to use' comparison.
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.