Agent Revenue Network

Score Opportunity Economics

score_opportunity

Read-onlyIdempotent

Calculate risk-adjusted expected profit, margin and eligibility for one proposed opportunity before execution. Supply revenue, execution cost and any tool costs, fees or failure loss in one consistent monetary unit; omitted tool costs and fees are zero, while omitted failure loss defaults to total costs. Use this free read-only calculation as an economics screen, never as proof of funding, escrow, requirements or buyer legitimacy.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`fees`	No	Optional platform/payment fees.
`revenue`	Yes	Gross payment expected if the task succeeds.
`toolCost`	No	Optional third-party/tool cost.
`failureLoss`	No	Loss incurred on failure. Defaults internally to total execution/tool/fee cost.
`executionCost`	Yes	Direct execution cost excluding tools and fees.
`failureProbability`	No	Estimated probability of failure, from 0 to 1.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`margin`	Yes	Expected profit divided by revenue; 0 when revenue is 0.
`eligible`	Yes	True when expected profit is at least 0.05 and margin is at least 0.20.
`expectedProfit`	Yes	Risk-adjusted expected profit in the same monetary unit as the inputs.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed18 schema fields changedOct 2, 2026

addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```

addedInput schema / description

Added value: +"Risk-adjusted economics for one opportunity. All monetary values must use the same unit."

addedInput schema / properties / executionCost / description

Added value: +"Direct execution cost excluding tools and fees."

addedInput schema / properties / executionCost / minimum
```
Added value: +0
```

addedInput schema / properties / failureLoss

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Loss incurred on failure. Defaults internally to total execution/tool/fee cost.",
+  "minimum": 0,
+  "type": "number"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / failureProbability / default
```
Added value: +0
```

addedInput schema / properties / failureProbability / description

Added value: +"Estimated probability of failure, from 0 to 1."

addedInput schema / properties / failureProbability / maximum
```
Added value: +1
```
addedInput schema / properties / failureProbability / minimum
```
Added value: +0
```
addedInput schema / properties / fees / default
```
Added value: +0
```
addedInput schema / properties / fees / description
```
Added value: +"Optional platform/payment fees."
```
addedInput schema / properties / fees / minimum
```
Added value: +0
```

addedInput schema / properties / revenue / description

Added value: +"Gross payment expected if the task succeeds."

addedInput schema / properties / revenue / minimum
```
Added value: +0
```
addedInput schema / properties / toolCost / default
```
Added value: +0
```
addedInput schema / properties / toolCost / description
```
Added value: +"Optional third-party/tool cost."
```
addedInput schema / properties / toolCost / minimum
```
Added value: +0
```

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "eligible": {
+      "description": "True when expected profit is at least 0.05 and margin is at least 0.20.",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "expectedProfit": {
+      "description": "Risk-adjusted expected profit in the same monetary unit as the inputs.",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "margin": {
+      "description": "Expected profit divided by revenue; 0 when revenue is 0.",
+      "type": "number"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "expectedProfit",
+    "margin",
+    "eligible"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedOct 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false, so the safety bar is lowered, yet the description still adds value: it labels the call "free" (cost/rate context) and bounds the meaning of the output so the agent does not over-trust it as verification of funding or legitimacy. Return format is not described, but an output schema exists.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and the calculation outputs, followed by input guidance and a scope caveat. Dense but every clause earns its place; the second sentence is long but carries the unit rule, defaults, and the misuse warning.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a 6-parameter, fully schema-documented calculation tool with an output schema and complete annotations, the description covers purpose, input unit conventions, default behavior, and the limits of what the result proves. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100% and every parameter (fees, toolCost, failureLoss, executionCost, revenue, failureProbability) is already documented in the schema, including the internal default for failureLoss. The description restates the omitted-value defaults and the "same monetary unit" constraint, which is useful cross-parameter context but largely duplicates structured data.

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 precise verb and outputs ("Calculate risk-adjusted expected profit, margin and eligibility") scoped to "one proposed opportunity before execution." No sibling in the list does economics scoring, so there is no ambiguity to disambiguate, and the agent knows exactly what this returns conceptually.

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?

Gives clear timing ("before execution") and an explicit constraint on interpretation: "use ... as an economics screen, never as proof of funding, escrow, requirements or buyer legitimacy." It does not name alternative tools, but no sibling performs a comparable economic calculation, so there is little to route against.

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

All Agent Revenue Network tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Context Every Agent Can ShareAgents share what they learn, hand off work, and keep it when you switch models. Start with 5 GB free.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?