ciso_assistant_api_crq_quantitative_risk_hypotheses_lec_retrieveRetrieve Loss Exceedance Curve data for a stored quantitative risk simulation by ID, enabling review of loss distributions and exceedance probabilities.
Returns the Loss Exceedance Curve data from stored simulation results.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.3.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the curve is derived from stored simulation results, hinting that the response may be empty or stale if no simulation exists, but it says nothing about the shape of the curve data or the failure mode when no simulation has run.
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?
One tight sentence with zero filler and the key noun up front. It is efficient, though efficient at the cost of the disambiguation detail an agent actually needs.
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?
No output schema and an undocumented id parameter mean the description is the only source of specificity, and it omits the one fact that matters: which record type the id refers to. Against three near-identical LEC siblings, that gap is significant despite the annotations carrying the safety profile.
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?
The single parameter 'id' has 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not say what it identifies. Given sibling LEC endpoints for hypotheses, scenarios and studies that each take an 'id', the agent cannot tell from the description whether this is a hypothesis, scenario or study identifier.
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?
States a specific verb ('Returns') and a specific resource ('Loss Exceedance Curve data'), with the source qualifier 'from stored simulation results'. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling LEC endpoints (quantitative_risk_scenarios_lec_retrieve, quantitative_risk_studies_combined_lec_retrieve), which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.
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?
'From stored simulation results' implies the prerequisite that a simulation must already have been run, which is useful implicit usage context. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this over the scenario-level or study-level LEC endpoints, and no exclusion guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.