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?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds context by stating that omitting items lists across all banks and that multiple connections are queried sequentially with rate-limiting. No contradictions.
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 concise, using three sentences to cover purpose, usage, and behavior. It is front-loaded with the core action and wastes no words.
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 input schema (one optional parameter), good annotations, and no output schema, the description provides sufficient information. It explains the return structure ({ results, errors } per connection), though it does not detail error handling or pagination, which is acceptable.
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 only defines items as an array of strings (0% description coverage). The description compensates by explaining that items are connection selectors (item_id uuid, connector_id, or connector_name) and that each entry corresponds to one connection. This adds significant meaning 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 lists loan contracts per bank connection, specifying the HTTP method and resource. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like openfinance_get_loan_detail by describing the scope (multiple vs single loan).
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 how to use the items parameter to fetch loans from specific connections or omit it for all connections. It mentions sequential querying with rate-limit spacing but does not explicitly compare with alternatives like openfinance_get_loan_detail.
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.
Most open_-finance tools are clearly bound to a resource+action, but several pairs require careful reading: list_transactions vs list_transactions_by_item, get_iate_status vs get_provider_status, and connect vs list_connections. The marketplace tool is also a single heavily overloaded tool that bundles search/describe/invoke/install and a prompt library, which blurs its boundary.
The Open Finance tools follow openfinance_verb_noun consistently, and the top-level tools are all snake_case, so there is no wild con convention mixing. Deviations exist in generic tools like marketplace/toolki_i/nfo and in non-verb patterns like accent_status, but overall the naming is readable and predictable.
At 25 tools the server sits at the upper edge of what is comfortably scoped; the many list/get/status endpoints are justified by the Open Finance domain, but the extra marketplace and admin utilities make it feel broader than a single-purpose sovereign. It is not abusive, but it is definitely on the heavy side.
The Open Finance access covers accounts, balances, transactions, credit card bills, investment, loans, connections, diagnostics, force-sync, and transaction recategorization. Missing operations are mostly intentional autentications/connection widget hand-offs (add_connection_url, reconnect_url), so the set can still support common workflows without dead ends.