Start a UCP600/ISBP letter-of-credit / trade-document discrepancy audit over a set of documents. Returns a job_id; then call get_lc_audit_result to poll. Decision support, not a guarantee of bank acceptance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ruleset | No | omit for the default 39-rule trade-payment set; 'lc-presentation' = 29-rule UCP600/ISBP L/C presentation check | |
| documents | Yes | 1-12 documents |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses the async nature (returns job_id) and the audit's advisory role (decision support). However, it lacks details on safety, auth requirements, rate limits, or error behavior, which would be expected for a mutation-like tool.
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 extremely concise: three sentences, front-loading the core purpose and return value, then adding a disclaimer. No superfluous words.
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?
Given the tool's async nature and lack of output schema, the description satisfactorily explains the workflow (start, poll) and provides a disclaimer. It could mention timeouts or failure modes, but the essentials are covered.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minor context (e.g., '29-rule UCP600/ISBP' for the ruleset enum and '1-12 documents' hint), but it does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.
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 clearly states it starts a UCP600/ISBP letter-of-credit/trade-document discrepancy audit over documents. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'get_lc_audit_result' by specifying it returns a job_id and polling is required, leaving no ambiguity.
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 description provides a clear workflow: call this to start an audit, then poll with get_lc_audit_result. It includes a disclaimer that it is decision support, not a guarantee. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives (other than the implicit polling step).
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.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one starts an audit and returns a job_id, the other polls for results. No ambiguity or overlap.
Both tool names follow the verb_noun pattern with snake_case (start_lc_audit, get_lc_audit_result), providing a predictable and consistent naming convention.
With only two tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose: initiating an audit and retrieving results. The count reflects a focused workflow without unnecessary tools.
The tool surface covers the core audit lifecycle (start and poll). A minor gap is the lack of a cancel or list audits tool, but this is acceptable for a minimal service.