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?
The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: sequential querying with rate-limit spacing and the return format per connection. Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent. Some details like pagination are omitted, but overall transparency is good.
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 with no redundancy. The purpose is stated first, followed by parameter usage, then return format. Every sentence adds necessary information, achieving conciseness without sacrificing clarity.
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 covers return structure. Complexity is low with one optional parameter. Sibling tools are accounted for. Missing potential pagination details, but overall adequate for the tool's simplicity.
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?
Schema coverage is 0% with no parameter descriptions. The description fully compensates by explaining that `items` is an array of connection selectors (item_id, connector_id, or connector_name) and describes the effect of passing or omitting it. This adds high value.
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 that the tool lists loan contracts per bank connection, specifies the HTTP method path, and distinguishes its listing behavior from the sibling tool openfinance_get_loan_detail.
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 when to pass the `items` parameter (for specific connections) and when to omit it (to list across all banks). It also notes sequential querying with rate-limit spacing. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like get_loan_detail for a single loan, which would strengthen guidance.
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.