Analyzera

Risk ceiling for a horizon

get_risk_ceiling_for_horizon

Read-onlyIdempotent

The highest risk level a stated horizon supports, from Analyzera's published table.

For when the client says when they need the money and asks what risk level
fits. The result is a ceiling: the client may choose any level at or below it.
``digest`` carries the wording of the result and ``table`` the whole horizon
policy. It uses the same horizon-to-loss chain as the advice path.

``horizon_years`` is the horizon the client stated; nothing is read from their
profile or records. Band edges close at the top, so five years falls in the 3-5
band. ``max_monthly_loss`` (0.10 = 10%) can only lower the ceiling; with both,
the lower wins.

This is a calculator, not a suitability assessment: it does not consider the
client's appetite, capacity or experience, and records nothing.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "horizon_years": "<horizon_years>"
    },
    "name": "get_risk_ceiling_for_horizon"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`horizon_years`	Yes
`max_monthly_loss`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real substance on top: the result is an upper bound the client may go below, it reads nothing from profile or records, band edges close at the top, and the two inputs combine by taking the lower. It also discloses output fields (digest, table).

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 core definition, then use case, then parameter rules, then scope limit — good ordering. Mildly longer than needed, with slight redundancy between 'nothing is read from their profile or records' and 'records nothing'.

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?

Given an output schema exists, the description needn't detail returns, yet it still flags what digest and table carry. Combined with the parameter semantics and scope exclusions, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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

Parameters5/5

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

With 0% schema coverage the description carries the full burden and does: horizon_years is the client-stated horizon with band-edge semantics (five years falls in the 3-5 band), and max_monthly_loss is given a unit example (0.10 = 10%) plus its interaction rule (can only lower the ceiling).

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+resource: it returns the highest risk level a given horizon supports from a published table. The 'ceiling' framing and the 'calculator, not suitability assessment' distinction separate it from siblings like assign_strategy or describe_portfolio_risk.

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 a concrete trigger: 'when the client says when they need the money and asks what risk level fits', plus an explicit exclusion ('not a suitability assessment... does not consider appetite, capacity or experience'). It does not name the sibling tool an agent should use instead for suitability, so it falls short of a 5.

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

All Analyzera 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?