Skip to main content
Glama

compare_savings_accounts

Compare high-yield savings account rates and minimum balance requirements

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / $schema
      Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +true
    • removedInput schema / properties
      Removed value: -{
      -  "initialDeposit": {
      -    "description": "The initial deposit amount in USD.",
      -    "type": "number"
      -  }
      -}
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
      -  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
      -  "additionalProperties": false,
      -  "properties": {
      -    "metadata": {
      -      "additionalProperties": false,
      -      "properties": {
      -        "queryId": {
      -          "type": "string"
      -        },
      -        "sessionId": {
      -          "type": "string"
      -        },
      -        "timestamp": {
      -          "type": "string"
      -        }
      -      },
      -      "required": [
      -        "queryId",
      -        "timestamp"
      -      ],
      -      "type": "object"
      -    },
      -    "offers": {
      -      "items": {
      -        "additionalProperties": false,
      -        "properties": {
      -          "accountId": {
      -            "type": "string"
      -          },
      -          "apy": {
      -            "type": "string"
      -          },
      -          "imageUrl": {
      -            "type": "string"
      -          },
      -          "interestRate": {
      -            "type": "string"
      -          },
      -          "issuer": {
      -            "type": "string"
      -          },
      -          "minBalanceForApy": {
      -            "type": "string"
      -          },
      -          "monthlyFee": {
      -            "type": "string"
      -          },
      -          "name": {
      -            "type": "string"
      -          },
      -          "rating": {
      -            "maximum": 5,
      -            "minimum": 0,
      -            "type": "number"
      -          }
      -        },
      -        "required": [
      -          "accountId",
      -          "name",
      -          "issuer",
      -          "imageUrl",
      -          "rating",
      -          "apy",
      -          "minBalanceForApy",
      -          "monthlyFee"
      -        ],
      -        "type": "object"
      -      },
      -      "type": "array"
      -    }
      -  },
      -  "required": [
      -    "offers",
      -    "metadata"
      -  ],
      -  "type": "object"
      -}New value: +null
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It says 'compare' but does not explain what invoking the tool does—whether it fetches live rates, returns a table, redirects, or has side effects. It does not mention authentication, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. This is a significant transparency gap for a tool with no structured annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the verb and the objects it affects in a compact, efficient manner. Every word earns its place, and nothing is over-specified or redundant.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the basic purpose but leaves the agent to infer the return shape and invocation side effects. It does not mention whether input like location is needed or what the comparison output looks like. While not grossly inadequate, it is minimally sufficient and relies heavily on the agent's assumption that 'compare' means returning a list of options.

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?

The tool has zero defined parameters and schema coverage is trivially 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning because none are declared. However, the schema allows arbitrary additional properties (additionalProperties true), yet the description does not clarify whether any optional filters are accepted—but with 0 required params, the baseline holds.

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 states a specific verb (compare) and a resource (high-yield savings account rates and minimum balance requirements), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that compare other financial products like loans, credit cards, and banking packages. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately separates this tool from alternatives.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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 does not name any sibling tool (e.g., compare_personal_banking) or specify conditions for selection. The only clue is the resource name, which offers weak implicit guidance, but there are no explicit directives or exclusions.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources