compare_toolsCompare two AI tools side by side by their directory slugs. Returns each tool’s profile (pricing, rating, editorial verdict, lifecycle) plus the editor’s head-to-head verdict and bottom line when one exists for the pair.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slugA | Yes | Directory slug of the first tool. | |
| slugB | Yes | Directory slug of the second tool. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate safe read-only operation. Description adds value by detailing the returned profile (pricing, rating, editorial verdict, lifecycle) and the optional head-to-head verdict and bottom line, going beyond what annotations provide.
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?
Two efficient sentences: first gives the main action, second specifies what is returned. No extraneous information, perfectly front-loaded.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description fully explains what is returned (profile fields, verdict, bottom line). For a 2-parameter comparison tool with no output schema, this is complete.
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 coverage is 100% with both parameters documented. The description only reiterates 'by their directory slugs' without adding new meaning beyond the schema's descriptions.
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 'Compare two AI tools side by side by their directory slugs.' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like list_tools or get_tool.
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?
Implied usage is clear: use when comparing two specific tools. The output details provide context, but no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative references are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: checking status, comparing two tools, finding alternatives, getting a full profile, listing by category, and searching. No overlap.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (check_tool_status, compare_tools, find_alternatives, etc.), making it predictable.
6 tools are well-scoped for a directory server, covering discovery, lookup, comparison, and status checks without being too few or too many.
The tool set fully covers user needs: search, list, get details, compare, find alternatives, and check lifecycle status. No obvious gaps for the intended purpose.