Evaluate an agent's credit limit by analyzing reputation and earning history, enabling informed lending decisions.
Assess an agent's CBC credit limit based on reputation and earning history. No api_key required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | Yes | UUID of the agent to assess |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description mentions 'no api_key required' but does not state whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or any rate limits. For an assessment tool, more behavioral context would be helpful.
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?
Two efficient sentences with no extraneous information. Highly concise and clear.
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?
Missing output description and any return format. While parameter is simple, lack of output schema or return value info limits completeness for agent decision-making.
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?
Only one parameter with full schema coverage. Description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema description. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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?
Description clearly states verb 'assess', resource 'CBC credit limit', and basis 'reputation and earning history'. It also notes authentication requirement, distinguishing it from siblings like borrow or get_cc_credit.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or alternatives mentioned. The note about no api_key hints at a lower barrier, but no guidance on when to choose this vs other credit-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.