agentery

Compare providers

compare_providers

Read-only

Use to compare 2–6 shortlisted listings side by side — plan-level prices (e.g. the Pro tier), capabilities, deployment, licence and how to connect — or to check a quote against alternatives. Inputs resolve to real listings by exact handle, then exact name, never a silent fuzzy swap: unknown inputs come back in unresolved_inputs with suggested_matches and a corrected_call; if only one input is real it is compared with its nearest market peers (comparison_status says so); if none resolve, comparison_status is insufficient_valid_providers. Mixed delivery types are flagged: a hosted agent and an MCP server are not directly equivalent, so compare hosted prices with hosted prices. Over-budget or weak matches get suggested_alternatives. Returns a concise decision view by default (fit, observed plans and prices with source and date, job cost, requirement verdicts, unknowns); pass detail:"full" for every field. Accepts provider_ids (aliases: handles, ids, or a comma-separated string).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`task`	No	Optional. The buyer's job in plain words; used as the service_view heading.
`detail`	No	Optional. concise (default): the decision view. full: the complete comparison (all plan lines, evidence checks, deployment, licence, how to connect, requirement evidence excerpts).
`service`	No	Optional. A service recipe whose fixed requirements and evidence fields are applied (see service_view.requirements).
`optional`	No	Optional preferences: reported in service_view but never gating.
`request_ref`	No	Optional task reference (rq_ + 12 hex) from an earlier answer. Continues that task: its remembered facts (quantities, budget, requirements, benchmark selection) apply to this call, and the answer keeps the same request_ref.
`provider_ids`	Yes	2-6 provider handles from search_providers/market_gaps, e.g. ["openhands","lexaclaw"]
`requirements`	No	Optional. Mandatory requirements as plain phrases (e.g. "sanctions screening", "documented MCP interface"). Adds an ADDITIVE service_view: per-provider evidence matrix from stored first-party page text — supported / not_supported / unknown with the excerpt and observation date; unknown never means unsupported.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 10, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / detail

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional. concise (default): the decision view. full: the complete comparison (all plan lines, evidence checks, deployment, licence, how to connect, requirement evidence excerpts).",
+  "enum": [
+    "concise",
+    "full"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedOct 4, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / request_ref

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional task reference (rq_ + 12 hex) from an earlier answer. Continues that task: its remembered facts (quantities, budget, requirements, benchmark selection) apply to this call, and the answer keeps the same request_ref.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

Changed4 schema fields changedSep 23, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / optional

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional preferences: reported in service_view but never gating.",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / requirements

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional. Mandatory requirements as plain phrases (e.g. \"sanctions screening\", \"documented MCP interface\"). Adds an ADDITIVE service_view: per-provider evidence matrix from stored first-party page text — supported / not_supported / unknown with the excerpt and observation date; unknown never means unsupported.",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / service

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional. A service recipe whose fixed requirements and evidence fields are applied (see service_view.requirements).",
+  "enum": [
+    "supplier-verification",
+    "contract-review",
+    "developer-capabilities",
+    "cheaper-alternatives"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / task

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional. The buyer's job in plain words; used as the service_view heading.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedAug 1, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / provider_ids / description

Previous value: -"2-6 agent handles from search_agents/market_gaps, e.g. [\"openhands\",\"lexaclaw\"]"New value: +"2-6 provider handles from search_providers/market_gaps, e.g. [\"openhands\",\"lexaclaw\"]"

AddedAug 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds substantial undisclosed behavior: deterministic resolve order (exact handle, then exact name, never fuzzy), the unresolved_inputs + suggested_matches + corrected_call contract, delivery-type non-equivalence warnings, and suggested_alternatives for over-budget matches. This goes well beyond the safety profile.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with purpose and scope before the resolution edge cases, and virtually every clause carries operative information. It is dense to the point of being a wall of text, but the ordering makes it scannable and nothing is pure filler.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description compensates by enumerating the return shape (fit, plans and prices with source and date, job cost, requirement verdicts, unknowns) and the failure/degradation statuses. For a 7-parameter comparison tool this is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 baseline is 3; the description adds value by documenting the accepted alias forms for provider_ids ('handles, ids, or a comma-separated string') and by clarifying the concise/full detail switch and its default. It does not add much on task/service/requirements beyond the schema, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource+scope ('compare 2–6 shortlisted listings side by side') and lists what the comparison covers (plan prices, capabilities, deployment, licence, connection). This clearly distinguishes it from singular getters like get_provider and from search_providers/market_gaps, which it explicitly names as the source of handles.

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?

States the two triggering scenarios ('compare shortlisted listings' and 'check a quote against alternatives') and routes the agent to search_providers/market_gaps for obtaining inputs. It also spells out fallback conditions (one valid input → nearest market peers; none valid → insufficient_valid_providers), which is exactly the when-to-use/when-not guidance an agent needs.

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

All agentery tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?