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?
Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint), the description adds important behavioral details: sequential querying with rate-limit spacing when multiple connections are specified, and the return structure `{ results, errors }` per connection. No contradiction with 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 very concise, consisting of two sentences that cover purpose, parameter usage, behavioral nuance, and return format. No unnecessary words, and the critical information is front-loaded.
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 simple schema (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description provides complete guidance: how to use the parameter, what the tool does, and the return structure. Annotations cover safety and idempotency. No additional details are necessary for an agent to use this tool correctly.
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 has a single undocumented array parameter `items`. The description fully compensates by explaining that each element is a connection selector (item_id uuid, connector_id, or connector_name), how to use it (pass as array for specific connections, omit for all), and the sequential behavior. With 0% schema coverage, this is excellent coverage.
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 lists loan contracts per bank connection and provides the API endpoint (GET /loans). It distinguishes the two modes: with specific connections or across all linked banks. This differentiates it from sibling tools like openfinance_get_loan_detail and openfinance_list_accounts.
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 explains when to include or omit the `items` parameter (specific connections vs. all banks). It also notes that multiple connections are queried sequentially with rate-limit spacing. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools for more granular operations, such as using openfinance_get_loan_detail for a single loan's details.
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 clearly separated by resource and action—accounts, transactions, bills, loans, investments, and connection status—so an agent can usually tell them apart. A few pairs remain confusable, notably openfinance_list_transactions vs openfinance_list_transactions_by_item and the monolithic marketplace tool overlapping with report_bug, but the detailed descriptions largely resolve the boundaries.
The openfinance_* subset follows a consistent snake_case verb_noun convention (list_accounts, get_item_status, update_transaction_category), and non-openfinance tools like report_bug and show_version fit the same style. The pattern breaks with bare verbs/nouns such as connect, authenticate, marketplace, and toolkit_info, but the domain prefix makes the majority predictable.
25 tools sits at the top of the heavy-but-manageable range, and the Open Finance resource pairs plus platform/marketplace tools each earn some place. The count feels slightly bloated because marketplace bundles many capabilities and several status/sync tools could be consolidated, but the scope is broad enough that the number is defensible.
The toolkit covers the core Open Finance surface thoroughly: accounts, balances, transactions, credit-card bills, loans, investments, categories, connection lifecycle, sync, and provider health, plus marketplace and platform plumbing. Minor gaps exist—no direct connect-bank action beyond URLs, no per-transaction get endpoint, and some marketplace operations are only accessible through the single marketplace tool—but standard workflows are not dead-ended.