Get the loan application form fields, their types, allowed values, and validation rules. Call this first to understand what information is needed to submit a loan application.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the tool returns (fields, types, allowed values, validation rules) and implies a read-only, non-mutating operation via the verb 'Get' and the 'Call this first' guidance. It does not mention authentication or error behavior, but for a zero-parameter retrieval tool, the provided context is sufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and includes only essential details. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description fully covers what the agent needs: what it returns and when to call it. It references the relevant submission workflow, making the context complete without excess.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the description need not explain any. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and since no parameter information is required, this score is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and explicitly names the resource ('loan application form fields'), along with the details returned (types, allowed values, validation rules). It clearly differentiates from the sibling submit tools by focusing on retrieval of form structure rather than submission.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The instruction 'Call this first to understand what information is needed to submit a loan application' provides explicit when-to-use guidance, establishing this as a prerequisite before the submit tools. It implies the appropriate sequence relative to siblings, satisfying the usage guideline requirement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool serves a distinct role: fetching form fields, submitting additional information, and submitting the loan application. No overlap or ambiguity exists between them.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_, submit_, submit_). The names clearly indicate the action and target, with no mixed conventions.
With only 3 tools, the set is minimal but still within the ideal 3-15 range. The tools cover the core flow without unnecessary bloat, though it feels slightly thin for a marketplace.
The tools cover the full loan application lifecycle: fetching required fields, submitting the application, and handling additional information requests. Minor gaps like status checking are not essential to the described purpose.
