HypePaper

compare_on_benchmark

Compare 2–5 papers head-to-head on the datasets and metrics they share; returns wins, losses and the evidence rows. Only complete, matching experimental protocols are compared. coverage has one row per paper: comparison_status compared, no_shared_lane (its stored lanes are listed) or no_stored_result. A number not returned here is not stored; say so, never supply it. [Free · 8 credits]

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": {
      "paper_ids": "<paper_ids>"
    },
    "name": "compare_on_benchmark"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`paper_ids`	Yes
`dataset_key`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses comparability rules, return content, per-paper coverage statuses, and an anti-fabrication rule that a missing number must not be supplied. This goes well beyond the input schema and prevents likely misuse.

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 front-loaded with purpose, then adds comparability constraints, coverage statuses, the anti-fabrication rule, and cost. It is dense but every clause contributes useful information, with no filler.

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?

For a two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, comparison eligibility, return-content expectations, and coverage statuses well. The main gap is the unexplained dataset_key parameter, which leaves minor ambiguity for an otherwise complete definition.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain both parameters. It partially reinforces the paper_ids range (2–5 papers) but never explains dataset_key or its expected format, leaving one of two parameters undocumented.

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 and resource: compare 2–5 papers head-to-head on shared datasets and metrics, returning wins, losses, and evidence rows. It establishes a distinct comparison scope rather than a global leaderboard or timeline, so an agent can tell what the tool is for without opening the schema.

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?

It gives clear usage context and exclusions: the tool compares 2–5 papers only when experimental protocols are complete and matching, and explains coverage statuses for when they are not. It does not name sibling alternatives, so it falls short of explicit when-to-use-vs-alternative guidance.

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

All HypePaper 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.

Resources

Need Help?