Credit GPS — Canadian credit

Missing a payment, and what happens after

explain_missed_payment

Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this for a missed, late, or nearly-late payment, or for "how long will this hurt me". Returns what happens when a Canadian credit card payment is missed: the roughly 30-day gap before it is reported at all, the Canadian R1-R9 rating scale a tradeline actually carries, and how long a reported late payment stays on the file. The Canadian answer differs from the American one on both the scale and the duration, and the 30-day gap is frequently actionable, because a payment caught inside it often never reaches the file. Returns bundled reference material, optionally filtered or calculated from inputs; does not fetch live data or change accounts.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`daysPastDue`	No	How many days past the due date the payment is, if known. Changes which part of the answer leads.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`asOf`	Yes
`sources`	Yes
`threshold`	Yes
`afterwards`	Yes
`disclosure`	Yes
`daysPastDue`	Yes
`ratingScale`	Yes
`withinReportingWindow`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedOct 25, 2026
- removedOutput schema / properties / daysPastDue / anyOf
```
Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "number"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / daysPastDue / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "number",
+  "null"
+]
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / withinReportingWindow / anyOf
```
Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "boolean"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / withinReportingWindow / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "boolean",
+  "null"
+]
```
AddedSep 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, and the description is consistent with all of them. It adds real context beyond them: the tool returns bundled reference material (not live data), it distinguishes the Canadian rule from the American one, and it flags that the 30-day gap is often actionable. It does not describe response shape in detail, but an output schema exists to carry that.

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?

Front-loaded with the use case, then the concrete content of the answer. It is on the long side and the trailing "Returns bundled reference material..." sentence is somewhat generic, but no sentence is filler and the actionable 30-day insight is placed where it will be read.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not enumerate return fields, and it instead conveys the substantive answer components (gap, scale, duration) plus the jurisdiction caveat. The only soft spot is that the optional daysPastDue input is left under-explained relative to how much the rest of the answer is spelled out.

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% and the single parameter already documents that daysPastDue changes which part of the answer leads. The description only gestures at this with "optionally filtered or calculated from inputs," adding no threshold guidance (e.g., what counts as 'nearly late'). Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb-and-resource: it explains what happens when a Canadian credit card payment is missed, including the 30-day reporting gap, the R1-R9 scale, and retention duration. This clearly separates it from siblings like explain_retention_periods and explain_when_issuers_report, and it pins the answer to the Canadian jurisdiction.

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?

"Use this for a missed, late, or nearly-late payment, or for 'how long will this hurt me'" gives an explicit triggering condition in the user's own phrasing. The closing clause rules out live-data and account-mutation use cases. It stops short of naming a specific sibling as the alternative for adjacent questions, which keeps it from a 5.

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

All Credit GPS — Canadian credit tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?