Skip to main content
Glama

distress-abc

by com.dropwatchhq

warn_liquidation_map

Build the LIQUIDATOR-facing ASSET / COLLATERAL MAP for a WARN-Act plant-death entity (the failing employer). Joins that entity to FREE-STATE UCC-encumbered collateral + secured parties (Colorado SOS, live keyless) + the county-recorder real-property lookout, and returns the encumbered-collateral inventory + liquidator/auctioneer/assignee actions. Buyers: distressed-asset liquidators, auctioneers, and the assignee running the wind-down — they NEED the collateral map to know what can sell free vs. what's locked by a perfected lien. Pass an entity (employer name) for the full map, or omit it for the recent plant-death TRIAGE feed (each with a CO-UCC collateral count). HONEST: WARN index is CA, UCC join is CO — a CA plant-death maps to CO collateral only for multi-state operators (honest null otherwise). Hand-verifiable at this volume; verify before bidding. [x402: full map settles $0.50 USDC on Base mainnet, keyless; free preview included.]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoTriage-feed size when no entity (default 12).
entityNoFailing employer / plant-death entity name (omit for the triage feed).

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Since annotations are absent, the description carries full burden. It honestly discloses geographic limitations (CA WARN index, CO UCC join), potential null results for non-multi-state operators, and the need for verification. It also mentions pricing and a free preview. This adds significant behavioral context beyond basic functionality.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the main action and progressively adds details. It is somewhat lengthy but every sentence contributes value, covering functionality, target users, usage options, limitations, and pricing. It could be slightly condensed without losing information.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description outlines what is returned: encumbered-collateral inventory and liquidator/auctioneer/assignee actions. It covers the main aspects for its complexity, but lacks explicit differentiation from sibling tools like abc_asset_map. Edge cases and error handling are not mentioned.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds meaning by explaining that 'entity' is the failing employer name and that omitting it switches to a triage feed. It provides usage context that goes beyond the bare schema definitions.

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 clearly states it builds a liquidator-facing asset/collateral map for a WARN-Act plant-death entity. It specifies the verb 'build', the resource 'asset/collateral map', and distinguishes from siblings by being liquidator-focused and WARN-specific. The target audience is explicitly identified.

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?

The description provides clear usage guidance: pass an 'entity' for the full map, or omit for the triage feed. It explains the context of liquidators, auctioneers, and assignees. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name sibling tools for when not to use this tool.

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

All distress-abc toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct purpose: feed, search, or map for either ABC or WARN contexts. The descriptions clearly differentiate between the two distress event types and the map functions.

Naming Consistency5/5

All names use lowercase with underscores, follow a consistent pattern with domain prefixes (abc_, warn_) followed by a descriptive verb_noun or noun_noun combination.

Tool Count5/5

Five tools is well-scoped for the server's purpose of providing distress event feeds and generating asset maps. The count is neither too few nor excessive.

Completeness4/5

Coverage is good: feeds for both ABC and WARN events, a search for ABC notices, and map functions for both. A minor gap is the lack of a dedicated search for WARN notices, but the feed is available.

Resources