Explain how Australian home-loan rates are determined and the next step. Manage Your Loans does not publish live rates; a broker compares them for a specific scenario.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It transparently states the tool's informational nature and its limitation: it does not publish live rates. No side effects or 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?
Two concise sentences, no unnecessary words, front-loaded with purpose.
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 no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and limitations. It explains what the user gets (an explanation) and what not (live rates).
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 zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description does not add parameter info, but none is needed.
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 explicitly states the tool explains how Australian home-loan rates are determined and the next step. It distinguishes itself from siblings by clarifying it does not publish live rates, which sets it apart from tools like calculate_repayments or compare_loan_types.
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?
It provides clear context that the tool is for explanation, not for obtaining live rates. However, it could more explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'compare_loan_types' or 'calculate_repayments'.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of the mortgage process: repayment calculation, Costco eligibility, loan type comparison, enquiry submission, borrowing power estimation, and rate guidance. There is no functional overlap.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., calculate_repayments, check_costco_eligibility, compare_loan_types), using lowercase with underscores.
With 6 tools, the set is well-scoped for a mortgage advisory server, covering key pre-application steps without being overly large or too sparse.
The tools cover the core pre-application workflow: calculation, borrowing power, rate guidance, comparison, eligibility, and enquiry. A minor gap is the lack of tools for existing loan management or detailed offer comparison.