agentery

get_custom_benchmark

Get a private custom benchmark's current report: members, current stats (headline median/quartiles only when ≥3 comparable priced members — monthly, per-seat and per-call prices are never blended), buyer-tier / provider-type / pricing-unit cohorts, historical index, and data coverage. Pass benchmark_id (your cb_ token) as an ARGUMENT.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`as_of`	No	Optional YYYY-MM-DD — reproduce the exact stats + index as they were on that date, using this version's fixed membership
`version`	No	Optional benchmark version (default latest)
`benchmark_id`	Yes	Your cb_ token (bearer secret; passed as an argument, never a URL)
`response_mode`	No	full includes the index series

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: stats only shown when ≥3 comparable members, pricing never blended, and includes cohort breakdowns. Missing details on auth requirements or error handling, but the token requirement is mentioned.

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?

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the main purpose. It is information-dense but slightly cluttered with parenthetical details. Efficient overall, though could be slightly more streamlined.

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?

Given no output schema and four parameters, the description covers the report's contents thoroughly, including conditional stats. It lacks explicit mention of the return format but compensates with specific details about what the report contains. Nearly complete for the complexity level.

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%, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds value by explaining that benchmark_id is a 'cb_ token' and clarifying the as_of parameter's usage ('reproduce exact stats'). It does not fully repeat schema but provides contextual nuance beyond parameter 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 clearly identifies the tool's purpose: retrieving a private custom benchmark's current report, and enumerates the exact contents (members, stats, cohorts, historical index, data coverage). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like create_custom_benchmark or delete_custom_benchmark.

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?

The description implies usage context (for viewing a report) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like price_benchmark or get_price_index. No exclusions or 'when not to use' guidance is provided.

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

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

A4.2/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but a few pairs could cause confusion: get_provider vs get_provider_profile overlap in scope (one is a card, the other a full profile), and research_capability explicitly bundles find_niche, niche_report, price_benchmark, and search_providers, creating layered redundancy. However, the detailed descriptions clearly differentiate the entry-point tools from the lower-level ones.

Naming Consistency4/5

The majority follow a verb_noun pattern (create_, delete_, get_, search_, suggest_, etc.), but a few tools use bare noun phrases (demand_signals, market_gaps, niche_report, price_benchmark) rather than imperative or get_ prefixes. This is a minor inconsistency that doesn't harm readability.

Tool Count4/5

At 19 tools, the set is slightly above the ideal 3-15 range but each tool serves a distinct, justified function within the market-intelligence and provider-directory domain. The count feels appropriate for the breadth of features (search, research, comparison, pricing, indexes, benchmarks, and feedback).

Completeness5/5

The tool surface is very comprehensive: full CRUD for custom benchmarks, multiple discovery paths (search, research, gaps, demand signals), pricing and index tools, profile/detail tools, comparison and alternatives, plus outcome reporting. There are no obvious dead ends or missing critical operations for the stated purpose.

Resources

Need Help?