ClausePilot

Analyze contract risk with ClausePilot

analyze_contract_risk

Paid $0.05 USDC contract workflow analysis. Without paymentSignature it returns the x402 payment challenge; retry after payment to receive the analysis.

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": {
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "analyze_contract_risk"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`text`	Yes	Contract text to analyze.
`owner`	No
`title`	No
`category`	No
`counterparty`	No
`paymentSignature`	No	Optional x402 PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header value. Omit it first to receive the payment challenge, then retry after payment.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 30, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / paymentSignature / description

Previous value: -"Optional x402 PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header value for a paid retry."New value: +"Optional x402 PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header value. Omit it first to receive the payment challenge, then retry after payment."

First observedSep 29, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose useful protocol behavior: a $0.05 USDC charge and that a missing paymentSignature yields an x402 challenge to retry against. However, it says nothing about what the analysis returns, whether it is read-only, or any auth beyond payment, leaving real gaps for a paid tool.

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?

Two tight sentences with the payment cost and retry path front-loaded; little waste. It is a bit lopsided, spending its budget on payment mechanics rather than the analysis itself.

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?

For a six-parameter paid tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin: it omits what the risk analysis produces and leaves four parameters undocumented. Only the payment mechanics are covered, so a caller still lacks what it needs to use the tool correctly beyond payment.

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 only 33% (text and paymentSignature). The description restates paymentSignature behavior already in the schema and adds nothing for owner, title, category, or counterparty, so it fails to compensate for the low coverage across the six parameters.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The name says 'analyze_contract_risk' but the description only calls it 'contract workflow analysis', which is vague about what is actually analyzed or produced. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like review_vendor_contract_risk or compare_contract_risk, which a caller must choose between. The verb+resource are present but underspecified.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description explains the payment retry flow (omit paymentSignature, then retry), which is behavioral rather than selection guidance. It gives no indication of when to pick this tool over the many sibling contract analysis tools, and no exclusions are stated. Usage must be inferred.

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

All ClausePilot 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?