mcp

financial_risk_exposure_model

[Taxonomy H.42 — baseline response (public data only)] Quantify a patient's financial exposure to medical-debt risk given current plan, health status, and historical claim volatility.

WHEN TO USE: User is planning for a medical expense, comparing plan options, looking for financial assistance, or trying to structure a payment plan.

WHEN NOT: For billing-error analysis (scan_bill_for_errors) or appeal drafting (generate_appeal_letter).

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": {
      "plan_id": "<plan_id>"
    },
    "name": "financial_risk_exposure_model"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`plan_id`	Yes
`household_income`	No
`emergency_savings`	No
`chronic_conditions`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedSep 7, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'public data only' and 'baseline response', which hints at limited data scope, but it does not disclose side effects, reversibility, output characteristics, or how historical claim volatility is obtained. The behavioral profile is largely opaque.

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 short and scannable, with clear WHEN TO USE and WHEN NOT sections. The taxonomy prefix 'Taxonomy H.42 — baseline response (public data only)' is somewhat cryptic and consumes space, but the overall structure is efficient and front-loaded with purpose.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Despite strong usage guidance, the definition is incomplete for a tool with no output schema, no annotations, and zero schema description coverage. It fails to describe expected outputs, required input semantics, how the model uses household_income and emergency_savings, or what 'baseline response' means operationally. An agent would likely need to guess at critical invocation details.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the four parameters. It mentions 'current plan', 'health status', and 'historical claim volatility', but only plan_id and chronic_conditions map loosely; household_income and emergency_savings are ignored, and 'historical claim volatility' has no corresponding schema input. The description fails to clarify required formats or the role of each parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and object: 'Quantify a patient's financial exposure to medical-debt risk', which clearly states the tool's function. However, it does not differentiate itself from closely named siblings like 'financial_exposure_model' or 'patient_financial_risk_score', and the 'Taxonomy H.42' prefix adds no clarifying value.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly provides WHEN TO USE scenarios (medical expense planning, comparing plans, seeking financial assistance, structuring payment plans) and WHEN NOT scenarios with named alternatives (scan_bill_for_errors, generate_appeal_letter). This gives an agent clear routing guidance beyond the tool's isolated function.

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

All mcp 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?