Skip to main content
Glama

BidSwarm

by app.nanocorp.bidswarm

dry_run

Put a row on the Board free for 10 minutes: the real Burn, the rank it would hold, no payment and no card. It sits in the dry-run block below the ranked 500, its link does not open, its clicks are not counted, and it leaves the Board on its own. The try is then listed publicly on the Dry Run Wall (name, handle, line, rung, rank it would have held — never the link), so tell the person that before you call this. Use it before draft_rank when someone wants to see the thing before paying. One dry run per handle per day.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesThe public http or https link the row would point to.
usdYesThe rung to simulate, one of 2, 5, 10, 25, 50, 100, 500 USD. It sets the starting Bid the Burn eats.
lineYesOne line shown on the row, up to 90 characters.
nameYesThe bidder name shown on the row, up to 60 characters.
handleYesPublic handle: 3 to 24 lowercase letters, digits and dashes. A dry run does not reserve it.

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses the temporary placement, non-clickable link, uncounted clicks, automatic removal, public Dry Run Wall listing, and the fact the link is never published. It also flags the need to tell the person about the public listing before calling.

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?

Four dense sentences carry distinct information: the core simulated behavior, the temporary and non-functional row properties, the public listing and consent requirement, and the use case plus rate limit. Nothing is redundant and the key constraints are front-loaded.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a tool with no output schema, the description covers the full lifecycle of the row, the public side effects, the rate limit, and the correct invocation context relative to draft_rank. An agent has enough information to understand what will happen externally and when to select this 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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantic context: usd sets the starting Bid the Burn eats, url will be displayed but not clickable, and the handle is not reserved by a dry run. This helps an agent reason about the meaning of the parameters beyond their schema 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 states a specific verb and resource: putting a row on the Board free for 10 minutes to simulate the real Burn and rank. It clearly distinguishes itself from draft_rank by positioning this as the pre-payment preview step.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It explicitly says to use this tool before draft_rank when someone wants to see the result before paying. It also gives a hard constraint, one dry run per handle per day, which an agent needs to respect when deciding to call it.

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

All BidSwarm toolsInspect
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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

get_bid_price and bid_for_rank both provide pricing information, and dry_run and draft_rank both create a board row, so tools can be confused based on names. The descriptions clarify the differences, but the overlap is still a real trap for an agent selecting quickly.

Naming Consistency3/5

get_leaderboard and get_bid_price follow a consistent get_ pattern, and draft_rank is a clean verb_noun, but bid_for_rank sounds like a bidding action rather than a price lookup, and dry_run breaks the naming convention. Mixed phrasing makes the API less predictable.

Tool Count5/5

Five tools is well-scoped for a niche paid-rank board: read the leaderboard, check pricing, run a free preview, and create a paid draft. No tool feels redundant, and the count is not overwhelming.

Completeness4/5

The core lifecycle is covered: view the board, check prices, dry-run a row, then create a paid draft that publishes via payment link. The only notable gap is no way to verify or manage an existing draft's status after link creation, but that may be intentionally outside the server's scope.

Resources