PRG composite risk score plus the seven dimension-level scores (INT, FRG, PRE, THR, PRO, REC, VAL) for one instrument or the market. [paid: $0.05 USDC on Base]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| asset | No | Omit for market-wide. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and it usefully discloses the paid nature ($0.05 USDC on Base) and the return composition. It implies a read-only operation via 'get' but does not explicitly state the absence of side effects or specify output formatting.
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 a single dense sentence that names the output components, scope, and pricing. Every piece of information is relevant and there is no redundancy.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides enough to invoke it correctly: what is returned, which instruments are supported, and the cost. It could optionally explain score units or scale, but that is not essential for selection and invocation.
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% with the asset enum and a description already explaining the optional behavior. The tool description adds the phrase 'one instrument or the market' but does not meaningfully extend the parameter semantics 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 the tool returns a PRG composite risk score plus seven named dimension-level scores, for one instrument or the market. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_mhi and get_regime by specifying the exact output and scope.
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 clear usage context: the tool applies to one instrument or market-wide, and the schema reinforces that omitting asset gives market-wide results. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use it.
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 targets a distinct concern: counterparty pre-audit, alerts, machine hazard index, market regime, and composite snapshot. There is no meaningful overlap; even similar risk metrics are clearly differentiated by scope (regime vs. snapshot).
All tools follow a verb_noun pattern with snake_case, mostly using the verb 'get' (get_alerts, get_mhi, get_regime, get_risk_snapshot). One tool uses 'check_counterparty' instead, a minor deviation that does not significantly harm predictability.
Five tools is well-scoped for a risk oracle server. Each tool provides a distinct piece of risk information without redundancy or bloat, fitting firmly in the ideal 3-15 range.
The tool surface covers the primary read operations for a risk oracle: counterparty checks, alerts, hazard index, regime, and composite scores. Minor gaps exist, such as historical trend retrieval or detailed dimension breakdowns per endpoint, but the core workflows are supported.