distress_score

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the paid nature, the exact price, the payment method, the signing mechanism, and the behavior when payment is absent. It does not describe rate limits or failure modes beyond the payment requirement, but the disclosed behaviors are substantial and specific.

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 compact and information-dense, with every sentence earning its place. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds validation metrics, payment terms, and the no-payment behavior in a logical order.

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 paid single-ticker scoring tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential operational details: what it computes, how it is validated, what it costs, how to pay, and what happens without payment. It does not describe the response format, but the absence of an output schema and the clear payment behavior make the description reasonably complete.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds context for 'ticker' by giving an example and for 'agent' by explaining it appears on a public reputation ledger, which is useful but not a major addition beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('computes'), a specific resource ('Altman Z-score from live SEC XBRL filings'), and a clear scope ('for a single equity ticker'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing the paid, signed distress-foresight score rather than a generic screen or verification tool.

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 clearly explains the payment requirement and the consequence of calling without payment, which is essential usage guidance. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for when not to use this one, but the sibling list and the phrase 'single equity ticker' imply the scope boundary.

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