Rank competing loan offers by true cost of capital, not headline rate. Accounts for origination, exit and other fees over the actual term, and returns an effective rate, total cost and fee burden in basis points for each — so a 'cheaper' rate with heavy fees sorts correctly.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| offers | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the central behavior (accounting for fees over the actual term), the sorting intent, and the returned values (effective rate, total cost, fee burden in basis points). It does not cover edge cases or assumptions, but the core behavior is transparent and non-misleading.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and then adds only necessary detail. Every clause contributes: the comparison basis, the major fee categories, the actual-term consideration, and the returned outputs.
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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately explains what is returned and why ranking is done correctly. It does not list input requirements, but the schema covers those constraints reasonably well. Minor gaps remain around exact output structure and fee semantics, but the description is largely sufficient for an agent to call and interpret the tool.
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 description coverage for the top-level parameter is 0%, so the description needs to compensate. It mentions origination, exit, and other fees, but it does not explain the required fields (loanAmount, interestRate, term) or clarify fee units. The nested schema provides some help for a few fields, but the description itself adds limited parameter-level meaning beyond fee categories.
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 names a specific verb ('Rank') and resource ('competing loan offers'), and clarifies the distinguishing criterion ('true cost of capital, not headline rate'). This differentiates it from sibling payment or metric tools without needing to open the schema.
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 intended use is clearly implied: use this when multiple loan offers need to be compared by all-in cost. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for simpler single-loan calculations, so the guidance is inferred rather than explicit.
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.