SecureLend Market

get_multiple_offers

Destructive

Records a loan enquiry in SecureLend's system and submits it to multiple selected lenders on the user's behalf, after explicit user confirmation. Each lender independently reviews the enquiry and, if interested, provides a quote. The user reviews quotes and completes their chosen application directly on the lender's own platform. This tool does not collect sensitive personal data such as social security numbers, bank account details, health information, or biometric data. Creates a persistent lead record in SecureLend's database.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`applicant`	Yes	Personal details of the applicant.
`providers`	Yes	The list of selected providers to submit the application to.
`productType`	Yes	The type of financial product being applied for.
`applicationData`	Yes	The original search parameters or form data for the application.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	The unique ID of the application.
`status`	Yes	The current status of the application.
`createdAt`	Yes	The timestamp when the application was created.
`providers`	Yes	The list of providers the application was sent to.
`productType`	Yes	The type of product applied for.
`requiredInfo`	No	Details on information required from the applicant when status is ACTION_REQUIRED.
`applicationId`	No	Alias of `id`. Pass this value as `applicationId` to the `track_offer_status` tool to check enquiry status later.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: requires explicit user confirmation, creates a persistent lead record, lenders review independently, and it doesn't collect sensitive data. This elaboration on side effects and data handling significantly enhances transparency beyond the raw readOnly/destructive hints.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is five sentences and front-loaded with the core action, but there is slight redundancy between 'records a loan enquiry' and 'creates a persistent lead record'. It is relatively concise but could be tightened without losing meaning.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complex nested schema and output schema, the description covers the workflow, data collection boundaries, and user interaction flow. It doesn't mention error scenarios or response specifics, but the output schema fills that gap. Overall, it is complete for an agent to understand the tool's role.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters with descriptions. The description adds little parameter-specific detail beyond mentioning 'multiple selected lenders', which aligns with the providers parameter. It doesn't clarify formats or relationships beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'records' and 'submits' with the resource 'loan enquiry' and 'multiple selected lenders', making the tool's purpose obvious. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_offer (singular) and compare_* tools by emphasizing the multi-lender submission workflow.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for multi-lender submissions after explicit user confirmation, but it doesn't explicitly state when-not-to-use or reference alternatives such as get_offer. This is implied usage rather than explicit guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All SecureLend Market tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clear, distinct purposes, but there are a few potentially confusing pairs. Compare_personal_banking and compare_savings_accounts overlap somewhat, and calculate_loan_payment could be mistaken for covering mortgages despite calculate_mortgage_payment existing. Overall, descriptions help resolve most ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern throughout: compare_* for comparisons, calculate_* for calculations, display_* for forms, submit_* for submissions, and get_* for offers. All names use lowercase with underscores, creating a predictable and uniform naming scheme.

Tool Count4/5

With 22 tools, the count is on the higher side but appropriate given the broad financial marketplace domain. Each tool covers a specific product category or workflow step, so the size feels justified rather than bloated. It is slightly heavy but not excessive for the scope.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers comparison, calculation, lead generation, prequalification, document upload, and status tracking, forming a comprehensive marketplace workflow. Minor gaps exist, such as no tools for updating or canceling applications, but these are workarounds and the core user journey is well supported.

Resources

Need Help?