Calculate a lending position's health factor now and under a specified collateral drop to assess liquidation risk.
Health factor of a lending position, now and under a collateral haircut.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| debt_usd | Yes | ||
| asset_class | No | Which market answers. Inferred from the symbol's source when omitted. | |
| haircut_pct | Yes | ||
| collateral_usd | Yes | ||
| liquidation_threshold | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It doesn't say this is a pure computation (no side effects, no external calls), doesn't state how the haircut applies (to collateral value before threshold?), and doesn't describe the response shape despite there being no output schema.
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. It is efficient, though its brevity is a symptom of under-specification rather than disciplined minimalism.
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?
For a five-parameter computation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 20% schema coverage, the description does far too little. An agent cannot know units for the four required numerics, how the stressed health factor is derived, or what value to expect back.
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 20% and the description adds zero meaning for any of the five parameters. The verbose schema text argues about required-vs-default arity rather than explaining what collateral_usd, debt_usd, liquidation_threshold, or haircut_pct mean (units, ranges, whether haircut_pct is a percent 0-100 or a fraction). asset_class also raises an unexplained 'symbol' reference with no symbol parameter present.
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 output (health factor of a lending position) plus a stress variant (under a collateral haircut), which an agent can distinguish from general risk siblings like chaos-score or liquidity-depth. It stops short of defining what 'health factor' means numerically or what a haircut applies to.
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 indication of when to use this versus alternatives such as chaos-score or simulate-price-impact, and no preconditions or exclusions are stated. Usage must be inferred entirely from the one-line purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.