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, so the description doesn't need to repeat safety traits. It adds value by enumerating exactly what the returned state includes (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which is useful beyond the schema.
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 action ('Returns') and packs all key return elements into a tidy list. No wasted words.
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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, this description fully explains what the tool returns and covers the essential aspects of toolkit state. The listed items are comprehensive and leave no major ambiguity.
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, and the schema has no properties. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4, and the description correctly avoids inventing parameter details.
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 returns the current toolkit state, listing specific components (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This is a specific verb-resource pairing that distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on finance operations.
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 makes it clear this tool is for retrieving toolkit state, which provides clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.
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.
Each Open Finance resource has a clearly named list/get pair, and connection status vs provider status vs force sync are distinct. The main ambiguity is between list_accounts (which already carries balances) and get_account_balance, and between list_transactions and list_transactions_by_item, which requires reading the descriptions carefully.
The openfinance_* tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (list_*, get_*, update_*, force_sync, search_*). Exceptions like marketplace, toolkit_info, and openfinance_provider_status break the pattern slightly, but the two logical groups are predictable internally.
At 25 tools this is on the heavy end of the scale. Most tools have a real purpose, but several list/get pairs and the multi-purpose marketplace mega-tool could be consolidated without losing functionality, making the overall surface feel larger than strictly necessary.
The Open Finance surface is impressively broad: connections, accounts, balances, transactions, credit-card bills, loans, investments, categorization, sync, provider health, and connector search are all covered. Minor gaps like a single-transaction getter or a consolidated statement export force agents to assemble data with extra calls, but no critical workflow is blocked.