SecureLend Market

submit_prequalification_details

Destructive

Submits application prefill information for an existing enquiry to SecureLend's backend, which forwards it to the selected lender API(s). Covers standard prequalification data such as general financial profile, employment status, and business structure. IMPORTANT: consentsToFcra and consentsToTcpa must both be true (user must have explicitly agreed to the FCRA and TCPA disclosures) before this tool is called. This tool submits limited prequalification details for referral purposes only. It does not collect sensitive personal data or perform underwriting. If the user proceeds with a lender, the lender may later request additional information or perform credit checks on its own platform.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`isTest`	No	Set to true to test the submission flow without forwarding to live lenders.
`clientTags`	No	Key-value tags for internal routing and tracking. Values must be arrays of strings. Example: { "transid": ["fk912234"], "subid": ["ag67125"] }
`sessionUuid`	No	Session UUID from the originating session. Used for Engine/MoneyLion routing.
`productTypes`	Yes	List of product types this submission supports. Used for multi-product routing.
`applicationId`	Yes	The SecureLend application ID (returned by get_offer or get_multiple_offers) to which this additional information should be attached.
`loanInformation`	No
`legalInformation`	No
`creditInformation`	No
`savingsInformation`	No
`businessInformation`	No
`mortgageInformation`	No
`personalInformation`	No
`educationInformation`	No
`financialInformation`	No
`creditCardInformation`	No
`employmentInformation`	No
`autoInsuranceInformation`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`status`	Yes
`message`	No	Human-readable status message
`success`	Yes
`nextSteps`	No	Suggested next steps for the applicant
`providers`	No	Per-provider submission results, if forwarding was attempted
`updatedAt`	Yes	ISO timestamp of when the submission was processed
`submissionId`	Yes	Unique ID for this additional information submission record
`applicationId`	Yes	The SecureLend application ID this information was attached to
`requiredFields`	No	If status is failed or partial, this lists field names that were required but missing

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations include destructiveHint=true, but the description does not explain any destructive or side-effectful behavior beyond 'submits' and 'forwards'. It adds useful context about not collecting sensitive data or underwriting, and emphasizes consent, but the destructive annotation is not addressed. Since no contradiction exists, a score of 3 reflects the added context without full transparency.

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 four sentences and around 80 words. It front-loads the main purpose, includes an IMPORTANT condition, and adds scope clarification. While slightly repetitive with 'prequalification', every sentence contributes useful information, making it reasonably concise.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (17 top-level params, deep nesting, large schema), the description covers key preconditions and limitations but omits important operational details such as idempotency, what happens on repeated calls, or the implications of destructiveHint. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the overall context remains incomplete.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 29%, so the description must compensate. It only vaguely references categories like 'general financial profile, employment status, and business structure' and highlights the two consent parameters. It does not provide meaningful semantics for the many nested parameters (e.g., loanInformation, businessInformation), leaving a significant gap.

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 identifies the verb ('submits'), resource ('application prefill information for an existing enquiry'), and destination ('SecureLend's backend... selected lender API(s)'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like display_prequalification_form and submit_documents by specifying 'prefill information' and 'existing enquiry'.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description states a clear precondition (consentsToFcra and consentsToTcpa must be true) and implies usage context ('existing enquiry'). It explains the scope ('referral purposes only') and what happens next, but does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, giving it a solid but not fully explicit guideline.

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?