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?
Describes destructive effects (revoke consent, delete data) and return URL, adding value beyond the destructiveHint annotation. Could mention reversibility or side effects.
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, front-loaded with purpose, no filler. Efficient and clear.
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?
Covers effect and return value, but parameter definition missing. For single-param tool, should specify what 'item' is.
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?
Only parameter 'item' not explained; description says 'for a specific bank' but doesn't link to parameter. With 0% schema coverage, agent may not know what to provide.
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?
Clearly states it revokes Open Finance consent and deletes connection data for a specific bank, with specific verb+resource. Distinct from sibling tools like connect or 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?
Implies use when disconnecting a bank, but no explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. Missing context like prerequisites.
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 cleanly separated by resource and action (accounts, transactions, bills, investments, loans, connections), and the list-versus-get patterns are distinguishable. The main weak spots are the broad 'marketplace' tool, which bundles many sub-actions, and mild overlap between list_accounts/get_account_balance and list_transactions/list_transactions_by_item.
The banking tools follow a consistent openfinance_<verb>_<noun> convention, with list_/get_ prefixes used predictably. A few deviations like 'provider_status' (missing a verb) and non-prefixed platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, toolkit_info) keep it from being perfectly uniform.
25 tools is on the heavy side, but the Open Finance domain justifies a wide surface: balances, transactions, bills, investments, loans, connections, sync, and provider health each need their own entry points. The platform/meta tools add some bulk but are individually useful.
The Open Finance surface covers the full read lifecycle: discover/search connectors, connect via URLs, list and inspect connections, force sync, check provider/connection status, and read accounts, balances, transactions, credit card bills, investments, and loans. It also supports the one clearly expected write operation (transaction category correction), leaving no obvious dead ends in the core domain.