HelloBooks AI Agents

list_competitors

Return competitor positioning entries (QuickBooks, Xero, FreshBooks, Wave, Zoho Books, Tally) with where HelloBooks wins, where the competitor wins, and pricing notes. Optional country, tier (primary / secondary), and id filters.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	No	Return a single competitor by id (e.g. "quickbooks", "xero", "tally").
`tier`	No	Filter to head-on rivals (primary) or adjacent / segment-specific overlaps (secondary).
`country`	No	Only return competitors whose primary market is this country, or who are also evaluated in this market.

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It implies a read-only query but does not explicitly state safety, authentication, or side effects. Adequate for a simple list but lacks explicit disclosure.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main function and includes filter options. No wasted words.

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?

Given 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return content and filters. It omits pagination or limitations, but is sufficient for a straightforward list tool.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant context: it names specific competitors, clarifies id for single entry, and explains what the output contains (wins, pricing notes). This goes beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 explicitly states the tool returns competitor positioning entries, lists specific competitors (QuickBooks, Xero, etc.), and details what information is included (wins, pricing notes). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling analysis tools.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description explains optional filters but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage is implied as the listing tool for competitor data among many analytical siblings.

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

All HelloBooks AI Agents tools Inspect

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

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, with detailed descriptions that specify the exact input and use case. Even similar tools like QBO vs Xero journal analyzers are differentiated by source system and specific checks, leaving no ambiguity.

Naming Consistency4/5

The majority of tools follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., analyze_balance_sheet, list_features). A few exceptions like how_munimji_helps and feature_search deviate slightly, but overall the convention is consistent and readable.

Tool Count4/5

With 26 tools covering financial analysis, compliance, migration, and product info, the count is on the higher side but justified by the breadth of the accounting domain. Each tool serves a specific need without redundancy.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers all major financial statement checks (balance sheet, P&L, trial balance, journal entries), compliance, migration, and product details. A notable gap is the lack of cash flow analysis, but the set is otherwise comprehensive for its scope.

Resources

Need Help?