Checks a payee's risk score before money operations, returning a score where higher values indicate greater risk for policy-based decisions.
查询收款方风险评分(risk_score 越高越危险,解释权在治理层)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| payee | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full disclosure burden. It does add behavioral meaning by explaining that a higher risk_score means greater danger and that interpretation of the score is the responsibility of the governance layer. However, it says nothing about what happens when the payee is unknown, whether the lookup is a live or cached read, or what the returned fields look like.
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 compact sentence with the core purpose front-loaded and no wasted text. The parenthetical clarification adds useful context without bloat.
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?
The tool has no annotations and no output schema, so the description should explain the return shape and the known failure modes. It only hints at the meaning of risk_score (higher = worse) and omits the score range, the response structure, and the behavior for an unrecognized payee.
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 for the schema gap, but it adds nothing about the 'payee' parameter. It is unclear whether it expects an account number, a name, or an identifier, which is a meaningful gap for a required parameter.
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 names a specific verb and resource ('查询收款方风险评分'), so an agent immediately knows it retrieves a risk score for a payee. It is not confused with any sibling, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with related tools such as transfer_money, which the agent might expect it to precede.
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 gives no guidance on when to call it: no mention of using it before transfer_money, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must infer the intended workflow entirely from the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.