risk_score

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool combines counterparty signals, amount anomalies, sanctions screen, and heuristics, and returns a recommendation (allow/review/decline) with the meaning of 'decline' (abort payment). It also describes the output structure. No contradictions.

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?

The description is concise (6 sentences) and front-loaded with the primary purpose. It uses a clear, structured format with bullet points for recommendations and valid values. No extraneous information.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters and an output schema, the description provides sufficient behavioral overview and output details. It lacks parameter-level descriptions for all fields, but the output schema compensates. Overall, it is complete for the complexity level.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds context for 'rail' and 'category' by listing valid values, and explains the output structure. However, it does not describe 'counterparty_id', 'amount', or 'currency' beyond their roles in the overall process. The added value is moderate.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Score a transaction's fraud risk BEFORE authorizing payment.' It uses a specific verb ('score') and resource ('risk'), and provides context on when to use it ('right before an agent pays'). No sibling tools exist, so differentiation is unnecessary.

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?

The description explicitly says 'Call right before an agent pays,' providing clear timing. It also lists valid values for 'rail' and 'category', helping the agent use correct inputs. It does not include explicit when-not-to-use statements, but the guidance is strong.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.