Returns connection status and URLs. When all providers are connected, returns authenticated:true and empty pending[]. When credentials are missing, returns connect_url for the toolkit and per-install URLs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, establishing a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral detail about the response shape in different states, including the authenticated flag and pending array, which goes beyond the annotations.
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-loads the core purpose, and includes only meaningful conditional details. No wasted words or redundant content.
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 no-input status tool, the description fully covers the two relevant states and the returned URLs. No output schema exists, so the conditional return-value descriptions are sufficient for an agent to understand what to expect.
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 schema provides complete coverage. The baseline for zero parameter tools is 4; the description appropriately focuses on output behavior rather than 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 the tool returns connection status and URLs, with a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('connection status'). It also distinguishes the tool by explaining both success and missing-credential cases, setting it apart from sibling tools like provider_status or authenticate.
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 provides clear contextual triggers: when all providers are connected, and when credentials are missing. It implies this tool is used to check overall connection status or obtain connect URLs, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it.
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 mostly distinct list/get/update/sync operations, and the non-openfinance tools are clearly separate platform utilities. A few pairs could be confused, such as openfinance_list_accounts vs openfinance_get_accounts_detail, or openfinance_get_item_status vs openfinance_list_connections, but the descriptions generally make the intended use clear.
The domain tools follow a consistent openfinance_verb_noun pattern, making the bulk of the API predictable. The deviation comes from the six non-prefixed platform tools, and one or two names like openfinance_provider_status are noun-led rather than verb-led, but overall the convention is coherent.
25 tools is at the heavy end of the range, and the server would feel tighter if some get/list pairs were consolidated. However, the breadth is somewhat justified by the number of Open Finance resource types covered: accounts, transactions, bills, investments, loans, connections, categories, and sync/status operations plus platform utilities.
The Open Finance surface is thorough: connection lifecycle, account data, balances, transactions, credit card bills, investments, loans, categories, sync, and provider health are all covered. There are no significant dead ends, and the additional platform tools handle authentication, marketplace discovery, and system information.