Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Brief

by cards.getbrief
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Which card for this spend

recommend
Read-onlyIdempotent

Ranks the cards a person holds for one spend: a merchant (such as "MakeMyTrip", "Swiggy", "amazon.in") or a category, and an amount in rupees. Each card comes with the points, their ₹ value at Brief’s estimate and at the baseline its card page prints, the working, the rule and its source, any cap that bites, the transfer route the value assumes, and a cheaper channel (a bank’s travel portal) with the portal rule’s own condition, beside every portal rule weighed for that card (channels). When the order changes at baseline values, the answer says so. Month-to-date spend counts as zero unless wallet.month_to_date carries it, so a monthly cap reads as untouched; the answer says which. Nothing in the wallet is stored.

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": {
      "amount_inr": "<amount_inr>",
      "wallet": "<wallet>"
    },
    "name": "recommend"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
upiNoPaid by UPI. Only RuPay credit cards link to UPI, and some earn differently there.
walletYesThe cards held. Passed in each call; nothing is kept.
categoryNoThe spend category when there is no merchant, or to say how a multi-category merchant codes.
merchantNoWhere the money goes: a merchant name or domain. A UPI handle also works.
amount_inrYesThe amount in rupees.
internationalNoSpent abroad or in a foreign currency. Forex markup and GST come off the value.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / wallet / properties / month_to_date / additionalProperties / properties / points / description
      Added value: +"Points, or ₹ of cashback, already earned on this card this month, counted against monthly caps."
    • addedInput schema / properties / wallet / properties / month_to_date / additionalProperties / properties / spend_inr / description
      Added value: +"Rupees already spent on this card this month, for caps and minimums counted in spend."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the read-only, idempotent annotations, the description discloses the ranking behavior, the values and rules returned, baseline-versus-estimate behavior, cap effects, channel alternatives, and the zero month-to-date default. It also aligns with the annotations by stating that nothing in the wallet is stored.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but the output description becomes a dense run-on list with awkward phrasing such as 'beside every portal rule weighed for that card (channels)'. It contains useful detail but would be easier to scan if structured into shorter sentences or paragraphs.

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 complex tool with nested parameters and no output schema, the description explains the returned recommendation components and important assumptions such as zero month-to-date spend and baseline order changes. It does not specify whether merchant or category must be supplied, which is a minor completeness gap.

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 schema already carries parameter documentation, but the description adds useful meaning around merchant examples, rupee amounts, month-to-date defaults, and how caps are treated when wallet history is absent. It does not cover every parameter such as UPI or international, but those are adequately handled in the schema.

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: it ranks the cards a person holds for a single spend identified by merchant or category and amount. That scope is distinct from card lookup or search siblings, and an agent can identify the optimization task 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 Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by 'for one spend' and the merchant/category/amount inputs, but the description never explicitly says when to choose this over get_card or search_cards, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites. It is adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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

All Brief 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