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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral detail beyond that: 'multiple connections are queried sequentially with rate-limit spacing' and the return structure '{ results, errors } per connection'. This helps set expectations 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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and endpoint, then providing parameter details. No wasteful words; every sentence contributes essential information.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It specifies the return format and the rate-limit behavior. Minor gaps like pagination or error handling details are not mentioned, but for a list tool with annotations, this is sufficient.
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 provides only 'items' as an array of strings with no description (coverage 0%). The description fully compensates by explaining the parameter meaning: connection selectors (item_id uuid, connector_id, or connector_name), one per connection, and the behavior when omitted. This adds substantial value beyond the schema.
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 purpose: 'Lists loan contracts per bank connection (GET /loans)'. The verb 'Lists' + resource 'loan contracts' + scope 'per bank connection' is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like get_loan_detail (singular) and list_credit_card_bills.
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?
It provides clear guidance on how to use the tool: passing `items` for specific connections or omitting it for all linked banks. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the distinction from get_loan_detail is implied by the plural and 'per connection' scope. No exclusions are stated, but the usage context is clear.
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.