AgentWorld

underwrite_agent_loan

[FREE] Get a real underwriting decision on a loan to an AI agent. principal = requested loan size in USDC. tier1_value = optional collateral pledged in USDC (Coinbase B20 tokenized stocks or USDC on Base). Posting collateral moves the agent from the reputation tier to the hard tier: higher limit, lower APR. Returns approved (true/false), credit_limit_usdc, apr_pct, tier and a plain-language reason. This declines - roughly half of all requests are refused - so treat a decline as a real signal about the counterparty. Free and unauthenticated. The decision is advisory: settle it in your own contract or through the SolvScore credit terms enforcement contract on Base L2.

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": {
      "agent": "<agent>",
      "principal": "<principal>"
    },
    "name": "underwrite_agent_loan"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`agent`	Yes
`principal`	Yes
`tier1_value`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedSep 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that roughly half of requests are declined, that the decision is advisory and must be enforced elsewhere, that no auth is needed, and that pledging collateral changes the tier and pricing. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs before invoking.

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?

The key capability is front-loaded and the parameter glosses are compact. The multi-line indentation in the parameter block is slightly noisy, but no sentence is filler — each adds pricing, tier, or settlement information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 3-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers inputs, cost/auth model, decline likelihood, and settlement obligations. The only real omission is the meaning of the 'agent' identifier and any note on how the reputation tier is determined, which the description only alludes to.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for two of three parameters: principal is defined as requested loan size in USDC, and tier1_value is defined as optional collateral with accepted asset types and the tier/limit/APR consequences. The required 'agent' parameter is never explained, leaving a gap.

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 opening line gives a specific verb and resource: get an underwriting decision on a loan to an AI agent. That is clearly distinguishable from sibling credit tools like get_credit_ladder, start_credit_ladder, or solvscore_repgate, which serve different roles in the credit lifecycle.

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 sets clear operating context: free, unauthenticated, advisory rather than enforcing, and it tells the agent how to interpret a decline and where to settle (own contract or the SolvScore credit enforcement contract on Base L2). It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when-not to call it, which keeps it 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 AgentWorld 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?