counterparty-credit
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Features and capabilities supported by this server
Protocol revision2025-11-25
| Capability | Details |
|---|---|
| tools | {
"listChanged": false
} |
| prompts | {
"listChanged": false
} |
| resources | {
"subscribe": false,
"listChanged": false
} |
| experimental | {} |
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| counterparty.healthA | Assess the credit health of a public energy company from public data. Use this when asked how financially sound or risky an energy counterparty is — a regulated utility, merchant generator/IPP, midstream operator, or power/gas marketer. Accepts a company name or ticker. Returns a 0-100 health score and descriptive band (Strong/Stable/Watch/Stressed/ Distressed), a factor-by-factor breakdown with the public source behind each factor, a plain-language summary, the methodology version, and an as-of date. This is transparent decision-support, not a credit rating. Raises rather than guessing when the company cannot be resolved or its public data cannot be retrieved. A score is only ever returned when it was actually computed. |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 1 tool
With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusion or overlap with other tools. The tool's purpose is clearly defined and unique within this server.
A single tool name naturally presents no inconsistencies. The dotted notation 'counterparty.health' is descriptive and suggests a clear action/domain pattern.
One tool feels thin for a server, even when narrowly scoped. The functionality is focused, but a server with a single tool offers little flexibility or breadth for an agent.
The tool covers the core domain of assessing counterparty credit health thoroughly, returning scores, factors, sources, and methodology. It lacks supplementary operations like historical comparisons or bulk screening, but these are not essential for the stated purpose.