Skip to main content
Glama

Amalgix

by io.github.Amalgix-io

Review Contract Risks

review_contract_risks
Read-onlyIdempotent

Crucible™ Contract Risk Intelligence for contracts, MSAs, NDAs, procurement agreements, and compliance documents. Extracts risk clauses, obligations, deadlines, liability exposure, missing terms, unusual clauses, evidence, and human-review flags. Not legal advice.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
depthNoAnalysis depth hint. Default: standard.
focusNoOptional focus area for the contract review.
queryNoOptional focus area. Default reviews payment, termination, liability, confidentiality, jurisdiction, renewal, obligations, deadlines, missing terms, and evidence.
formatNoOptional input format override. Default: auto.
contentNoContract, MSA, NDA, procurement agreement, vendor agreement, compliance document, or Base64 file content. Required unless fileUrl is provided.
fileUrlNoOptional HTTPS URL to a public contract/document file. Max 20MB.
sourceTypeNoOptional source type metadata. Default: text or file_url.
contractTypeNoContract type hint. Default: other.
jurisdictionNoOptional jurisdiction metadata. Output is evidence triage and not legal advice.
partyPerspectiveNoReview perspective for risk triage. Default: neutral.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
metaYes
analysisYes

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying extraction outputs (risk clauses, evidence, human-review flags) and includes a 'Not legal advice' disclaimer, which helps an agent set expectations beyond the annotations.

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?

The description is composed of three short, front-loaded sentences: document types, extraction outputs, and legal disclaimer. Every clause earns its place, with no redundancy or filler words.

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?

With a rich output schema and full parameter descriptions, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to decide when to use the tool and what it will return. The domain, outputs, and legal caveat are all covered, leaving parameter details to the schema.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% for all 10 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific details; it only repeats general contract-review features. The schema already handles parameter meaning.

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 the tool's function with specific verb and resource: 'Contract Risk Intelligence' for contracts, MSAs, NDAs, etc., and details outputs like 'Extracts risk clauses, obligations, deadlines, liability exposure...' This distinguishes it from generic siblings like analyze_document and analyze_public_filing.

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 gives clear context by enumerating applicable document types ('contracts, MSAs, NDAs, procurement agreements, and compliance documents'), which implicitly tells an agent when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, so it falls short of a 5.

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

All Amalgix 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
Disambiguation4/5

Each tool targets a clearly distinct operation: general analysis, public filing analysis, contract risk, summarization, web extraction, translation, cost estimation, and health check. While analyze_document could overlap with specialized tools, the descriptions provide clear guidance to use the specialized tools for known domains.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (analyze_document, estimate_cost, extract_web, review_contract_risks). Minor deviations include the bare verb 'summarize' and the noun-like 'health_check', and 'delegate_bulk_translate' uses an unusual verb prefix.

Tool Count5/5

8 tools is well within the typical 3-15 range, and each tool serves a distinct function that justifies its inclusion, including supporting utilities for cost estimation and health checks.

Completeness4/5

The toolset covers general analysis, specialized financial/contract analysis, summarization, web extraction, and translation. It lacks some potential operations like batch analysis or language listing, but the core workflows are supported without obvious dead ends.

Resources