Recalculates a full financial model for up to 20 values of a selected driver to test sensitivity, with optional base, conservative, or optimistic scenarios.
Recalculate the full model for up to 20 driver values
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| model | Yes | Full model object in the documented input contract | |
| driver | Yes | ||
| values | Yes | ||
| scenario | No | base |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the 'up to 20 driver values' bound, which the schema already enforces via maxItems, and says nothing about cost, determinism, or whether results are persisted or returned ephemerally.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the constraint is placed immediately after the action. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly under-specification rather than disciplined concision.
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?
With four parameters, a nested model object, no output schema, and annotations covering only safety, the description should say what a caller gets back and whether the recalculation mutates or merely evaluates. Neither the return shape nor the relationship to finance_run is addressed.
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?
Schema description coverage is only 25%, and the description clarifies only 'driver'/'values' loosely while restating the maxItems=20 cap already in the schema. The required nested 'model' object and the 'scenario' enum (base/conservative/optimistic) are never mentioned, leaving half the contract unexplained.
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 ('Recalculate') and resource ('the full model') scoped to driver values, which conveys a sensitivity sweep across up to 20 inputs. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like finance_run or finance_validate, which sound plausibly similar from the outside.
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 when-to-use guidance and no routing versus finance_run, finance_validate, or finance_verify. An agent cannot tell from the text whether this is a pre-run check, the primary execution path, or a post-run analysis step.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.