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 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond the annotations: sequential querying with rate-limit spacing, per-connection return shape `{ results, errors }`, and the semantics of the `items` parameter. These are not disclosed in the annotations or schema, so they provide essential context for the agent to predict the tool's runtime behavior. No contradictions with the read-only/idempotent hints.
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 endpoint. It packs essential parameter semantics, behavioral notes, and return format without redundancy. Every clause adds value, making it an example of concise, well-structured documentation.
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?
With no output schema and one optional parameter, the description is remarkably complete: it covers parameter meaning, global vs. scoped modes, rate-limit behavior, and return structure. The complexity is low, but the description leaves no significant gap for an agent deciding to invoke this tool.
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 is minimal (only `items` as an array of strings, 0% description coverage), so the description carries the full burden. It thoroughly explains the parameter: what each string can be (item_id uuid, connector_id, or connector_name), one entry per connection, and the special case of omitting the parameter to fetch all. This far exceeds typical compensation.
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 action ('Lists loan contracts per bank connection') and the resource (loans via GET /loans). It also distinguishes the tool's behavior by explaining the optional `items` parameter and the 'OMIT items' mode for all banks. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools or provide direct differentiation, so it falls slightly short of a 5.
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 gives clear usage context for the `items` parameter: passing connection selectors queries specific connections, while omitting it lists all linked banks. It also warns about sequential queries with rate-limit spacing, which helps the agent plan. It does not explicitly discuss alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the guidance is sufficiently clear for a listing tool.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, especially within the openfinance_* group (list vs get vs sync vs status). A few potential overlaps exist (e.g., openfinance_list_transactions vs openfinance_list_transactions_by_item, openfinance_get_account_balance vs openfinance_list_accounts), but descriptions are detailed enough to guide correct selection.
The openfinance_* tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., openfinance_list_accounts, openfinance_get_item_status). However, non-openfinance tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, toolkit_info) use a different style, and one tool (openfinance_list_transactions_by_item) breaks the pattern slightly. Overall readable and predictable within the primary domain.
With 25 tools, the count is on the heavy side per the calibration rubric (16-25 feels heavy). The server covers a broad financial data domain, which justifies the number, but it may present a steep learning curve and potential overwhelm for agents.
The tool surface is comprehensive for read-only Open Finance data access: accounts, transactions, balances, bills, loans, investments, category management, connection lifecycle, and status monitoring. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct payment initiation, no investment transaction creation), but for the stated purpose of data and analysis, coverage is strong.