Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

AIData.Broker

by broker.aidata
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Compare AI data companies by the money on record

compare_companies
Read-onlyIdempotent

One company of the AI data market (Scale AI, Mercor, Surge AI, Appen, Snorkel AI and the rest of the vendor register): its revenue over time read as twelve months, its growth over about a year, and its ranked competitors (the companies most like it in what they sell and the areas they work in). Or two companies side by side: which ranks higher and on what, their revenue, valuation and funding, and what each sells. Every figure with the publication that stated it.

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": {
      "company": "<company>"
    },
    "name": "compare_companies"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
withNoA second company to compare it with, the same way.
limitNoHow many rows to return (default 10, at most 50).
companyYesThe company: its name, its domain or its id on this site.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: every figure is attributed to the publication that stated it, and 'ranked competitors' is defined as companies similar in what they sell and the areas they work in. It still says nothing about row limits, defaults, or what happens when a company name is ambiguous.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The content is front-loaded on the single-company case, which is good, but the prose is meandering with stacked parentheticals ('the companies most like it in what they sell and the areas they work in') and loose phrasing like 'and the rest of the vendor register'. It could convey the same two modes in roughly half the 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns, and it does so thoroughly for both modes, including provenance of figures. Annotations cover safety. The remaining gap is operational detail (row limits, ambiguous-name handling) for a three-parameter read tool, which is minor.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters including the default of 10 and cap of 50. The description's only added meaning is that supplying a second company switches the tool into side-by-side mode. The `limit` parameter is never discussed in the description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the resource (an AI data market company from a vendor register) and spells out exactly what comes back: twelve-month revenue, ~1yr growth, ranked competitors; with a second company it returns head-to-head ranking, revenue, valuation, funding and product lines. That is far more specific than the title. It does not name a sibling such as rank_companies to differentiate, which keeps it off a 5.

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?

Usage is implied through the two modes described ('One company...' vs 'Or two companies side by side'), which effectively tells the agent to pass `with` for a head-to-head. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to rank_companies or search_deals for adjacent needs, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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

All AIData.Broker toolsInspect
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