Skip to main content
Glama

risk_scenario_library

Read-onlyIdempotent

The dated historical windows Risk Desk knows, with sources. Dates only; no prices are shipped. Replay one with risk_stress_replay and your own price levels.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "risk_scenario_library"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the payload contains dates and sources but deliberately ships no prices, which tells the agent why it must supply its own levels downstream. It does not describe the number of windows or coverage range.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what it is, then the payload boundary, then the next step. Every sentence carries information an agent would otherwise have to discover by calling the tool.

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 parameterless catalog tool with rich annotations and an output schema, this description covers the remaining gaps: what the records contain, what they deliberately omit, and which tool to pair it with. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly indicates there is nothing to supply and no filtering input, matching the empty schema.

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 names the specific resource: a library of dated historical windows that Risk Desk supports, along with their sources. It also states the scope boundary ('Dates only; no prices are shipped') and names the sibling that consumes it (risk_stress_replay), so an agent can tell this is a catalog lookup rather than a computation.

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?

It gives clear context for use: pick a dated window here, then replay it with risk_stress_replay plus your own price levels. That is explicit routing to an alternative. It stops short of stating exclusions (e.g., that this tool does not itself compute stress results), though the 'dates only' line implies it.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.