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 and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful context about the exact content of the returned state, going beyond the structured annotations. No contradictions or undisclosed side effects are apparent.
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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main purpose ('Returns the current toolkit state') and immediately provides details. Every word adds value with no redundancy.
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 parameterless, read-only info tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the key aspects of the returned state: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. It leaves no major gaps, given 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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the description need not explain parameter semantics. Schema coverage is vacuously 100%, and the baseline score of 4 for no parameters is appropriate.
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 the tool's function: it returns the current toolkit state, enumerating specific components (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like show_version or openfinance_provider_status.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as openfinance_provider_status or openfinance_list_connections. It does not specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the description alone.
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.