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

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.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 29, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "description": "JSON result; identical to the text content block.",
+  "type": "object"
+}

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

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Despite readOnly/non-destructive annotations already covering the safety profile, the description discloses substantial behavior: resolution order (exact handle, then exact name, never silent fuzzy swap), unresolved_inputs with suggested_matches and corrected_call, single-valid-input peer comparison, insufficient_valid_providers status, mixed delivery-type warning, and the concise-vs-full return modes. This is exactly the edge-case context an agent needs 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with purpose before behavioral detail, and nearly every clause carries decision-relevant information (resolution rules, statuses, delivery-type warning). It is dense and long for a single paragraph, but trimming would lose substantive edge-case guidance.

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 comparison tool with an output schema, the description covers what the schema cannot: input resolution failure modes, peer-comparison fallback, mixed delivery-type caveats, and suggested_alternatives with over-budget matches. An agent can call it correctly and interpret degenerate outcomes without further documentation.

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; the description nevertheless adds real value by documenting that provider_ids accepts aliases (handles, ids, or a comma-separated string) and by clarifying that detail:"full" expands every field. Remaining params (task, service, optional, request_ref) are left to the schema, which already documents them fully.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('compare 2–6 shortlisted listings side by side') and enumerates exactly what is compared: plan-level prices, capabilities, deployment, licence and how to connect, plus quote-vs-alternatives. It also names the sibling tools that produce its inputs (search_providers/market_gaps), so an agent can place it in the workflow without opening any 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?

Clear about the intended situation: shortlisted listings (2–6) or checking a quote against alternatives, with the prerequisite that handles come from search_providers/market_gaps. It does not explicitly say when NOT to use it (e.g. for open-ended discovery, where search_providers belongs), which keeps it from a 5.

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

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?