BeliefState

Get case comparison

get_comparison

Retrieves a cited engine comparison of two distinct investment cases using their returned belief_id and compare_to_belief_id. Returns a cited engine assessment of support, contradiction, dependency, unknown or unrelated reasoning, with assessment time and case cutoff. Useful for examining opposing views or investment alternatives. Optional comparison_focus narrows the assessment to a public research proposition present in both cases. Engine assessments remain separate from investor statements; shared sources qualify the independence of support. Uses account allowance or prepaid credit.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "belief_id": "<belief_id>",
      "compare_to_belief_id": "<compare_to_belief_id>",
      "context": "<context>",
      "llm_model": "<llm_model>"
    },
    "name": "get_comparison"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`as_of`	No
`context`	Yes	User's research goal in one short sentence (max 300 characters); include relevant ticker and topic. Exclude names, contact/account/portfolio details, credentials and source text.
`belief_id`	Yes
`llm_model`	Yes	Your model identifier, if known (e.g. gpt-6); otherwise leave unknown. Exclude credentials and private deployment names.
`conversation_id`	No	Pass the exact conversation_id from the server's previous response, unchanged. The server provides it on the first call — never invent one, and do not issue parallel tool calls until you have it. Keep passing the same conversation_id for the rest of the conversation, including after later user messages or on a different task; do not reset it when the user starts a new request.
`comparison_focus`	No	Optional public research topic or proposition to compare within both complete cases. Supply a topic, not a desired relation, private portfolio information or instructions. Other relations in the cases are outside this focused assessment.
`compare_to_belief_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses behavior the annotations do not: billing via account allowance or prepaid credit, the relation taxonomy returned (support, contradiction, dependency, unknown, unrelated), and the guarantee that engine assessments stay separate from investor statements. The conversation_id sequencing requirement lives in the schema, not the description, so that important constraint isn't reinforced here, keeping this at a 4.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with purpose and inputs before scope details, and most sentences carry distinct information. The closing line on shared sources and independence is cryptic without prior domain exposure and could be trimmed or clarified.

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

Completeness4/5

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

An output schema exists, yet the description still summarizes the assessment return and its metadata (assessment time, case cutoff), plus cost. What's missing for a 7-parameter, billed call is guidance on failure modes or prepaid-credit exhaustion behavior, which would round out completeness.

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?

With 57% schema coverage, the description contributes real meaning for the two required belief IDs ('their returned belief_id' signals provenance) and for comparison_focus (a topic, not a desired relation). It says nothing about as_of, context, llm_model, or conversation_id, leaving those to the schema, so this is baseline-appropriate rather than compensating for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Retrieves a cited engine comparison of two distinct investment cases') and pins the inputs to belief_id and compare_to_belief_id, which cleanly separates it from single-case siblings like get_case and get_cases.

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?

'Useful for examining opposing views or investment alternatives' gives a clear situational trigger, and the comparison_focus sentence explains a narrowing mode. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating when not to use it, so it falls below the explicit routing seen in top-tier definitions.

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

All BeliefState tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.