Revokes the Open Finance consent for a specific bank and deletes the connection data. The bank's data will no longer be available. Returns an add_connection_url to re-connect if needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| item | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses that connection data is deleted and bank data becomes unavailable. It also mentions the return of an add_connection_url, adding useful behavioral context without contradicting 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?
Three concise sentences: the action, the consequence, and the return value. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.
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 simple one-parameter destructive tool, the description covers the main behavior, impact, and return value. It lacks parameter clarification and error/edge-case details, but given the tool's simplicity and annotations, it is reasonably complete.
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 schema has one required parameter 'item' with no description (0% coverage). The description fails to explain that 'item' likely identifies the bank or connection, leaving the agent to infer this. It does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.
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: revoke Open Finance consent and delete connection data. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'connect' and listing functions.
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 implies the tool is used when a bank needs to be disconnected and notes the reconnection URL. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it for disconnecting a bank.
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.