Retrieve all bank, credit card, loan, and brokerage accounts across every linked institution in one query. Use it to view a complete account inventory before checking balances or transactions.
List every account across every linked institution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of conveying behavior. 'List every account across every linked institution' transparently signals a global, unfiltered read operation, but it does not disclose details like pagination, performance, or authentication side effects. The output schema covers return shape.
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, tight sentence with no filler. The action and scope are front-loaded, and every word contributes to the meaning.
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 zero-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it names the resource and the full scope. It does not explicitly call out sibling distinctions or read-only behavior, but those are largely inferable from 'list' and 'every account'.
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 input schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to explain. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately 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 states a specific verb ('List'), a precise resource ('every account'), and a clear scope ('across every linked institution'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like list_linked_institutions_tool, which lists institutions rather than 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 implies the main use case: retrieving the complete set of accounts across all linked institutions. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or say when not to use this tool, such as when only balances or institutions are needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.