Skip to main content
Glama

AgentDeals

by io.github.robhunter

compare_vendors

Read-only

Compare developer tools and services side by side — free tier limits, pricing tiers, and recent pricing changes. Use this when choosing between similar services (e.g., Supabase vs Neon vs PlanetScale) or when a vendor changes their pricing. Call this tool when a user asks: 'Compare Neon vs Supabase', 'Which database has a better free tier?'.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
vendorsYes1 or 2 vendor names. 1 vendor = risk check. 2 vendors = side-by-side comparison.
include_riskNoInclude risk assessment (default: true)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is known to be safe. The description adds context about what is compared (free tier, pricing tiers, changes) but does not disclose other behavioral traits like data sources or freshness. This is consistent with the get_calls calibration example where annotations lower the burden.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, usage context, and example queries. No fluff or redundancy. The description is front-loaded with the action verb and resource, making it easy to scan.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only tool with fully documented parameters and annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, and examples. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently conveys what the tool does without needing to explain return values. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both 'vendors' and 'include_risk' fully described. The tool description does not need to add parameter details; the schema carries the burden. The description does give usage examples that imply parameter use, but no additional syntax or semantic detail beyond schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Compare developer tools and services side by side'. It lists concrete comparison dimensions (free tier limits, pricing tiers, recent pricing changes) and provides examples, making it distinct from all sibling tools which are unrelated (e.g., check_balance, leaderboard).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says when to use the tool: 'Use this when choosing between similar services... or when a vendor changes their pricing.' It also gives example user queries. However, it does not mention any exclusions or alternatives, though none are needed given the sibling set.

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

All AgentDeals toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

The discovery-oriented tools—search_deals, compare_vendors, track_changes, and plan_stack—overlap in purpose and can be confused, especially for queries like 'What's cheaper than Vercel?' or 'Are free tiers being removed?'. The referral and account tools are clearly distinct, but the overlapping query surface lowers the overall disambiguation quality.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern such as check_balance, submit_referral_code, and request_payout. Two tools deviate: 'leaderboard' is a bare noun and 'my_referral_codes' uses a possessive prefix, creating minor inconsistency.

Tool Count5/5

Twelve tools is well within the ideal range and each tool covers a meaningful part of the AgentDeals domain: deal discovery, referral management, agent registration, payouts, and social routing. None of the tools feel redundant or extraneous.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers the main agent lifecycle well: registration, referral code submission and retrieval, balance checking, payouts, and friend management. Minor gaps exist—there is no way to update or remove a submitted referral code, and the payout address must be configured via an out-of-band API endpoint.

Resources