get_credit_risk_score

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'Price: $2.00', which adds useful context about cost, but doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, data sources, or potential side effects. For a tool that likely involves sensitive financial data, this is a significant gap.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args and Returns sections are structured clearly, and the Price note is concise. However, the 'Args' and 'Returns' labels are redundant with the schema and output schema, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 complexity (financial risk assessment), no annotations, and an output schema (implied by 'Returns'), the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose, parameters, returns, and cost, but lacks behavioral details like error handling or data freshness. With an output schema, it doesn't need to explain return values deeply, but more context would help.

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 meaning by explaining 'entity_id' as an 'Identifier for the entity (wallet, business ID, etc.)' and 'entity_type' with 'Options: individual, business, dao', which clarifies beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't detail format constraints or examples, leaving some ambiguity.

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: 'Get credit risk assessment for individuals or businesses.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('credit risk assessment'), and distinguishes the target entities. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_wallet_risk_score', which might be related, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'individuals or businesses' but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. Given the sibling tool 'get_wallet_risk_score', there's no clarification on how this differs, leaving usage ambiguous.

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