agentery

get_price_index

Call this for the CURRENT level of the Agent Economy Price Index (AEPI) — a chained like-for-like index over observed provider/MCP pricing (base 100 = 29 Jun 2026). It is an INDEX LEVEL, not a market price or tradeable asset. Returns the whole-economy headline index level with change_1d/change_7d/change_30d, as_of, like_for_like_pair_count, status and the methodology version, PLUS the same fields for the four buyer tiers (Individual, Pro, Team/SME, Enterprise). provider_type returns the standalone index for one delivery type (provider or mcp, own base 100) — agents and MCPs price and move differently. tier filters to one buyer tier; response_mode 'full' adds exact sub-0.01% moves and repricing counts. Reads the SAME canonical series as the /aepi page, so the MCP and website agree for a given timestamp. (Also accepts a benchmark_id to read a private custom benchmark's current index.) The economy index is whole-market by design — for pricing on a specific capability use market_report or price_benchmark.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`tier`	No	Filter to one buyer tier ('team' = Team/SME). Default 'all'.
`provider_type`	No	'all' (default) = the combined whole-economy index; 'agent' or 'mcp' = the standalone index over just that delivery type (own base 100). Agents and MCPs price and move differently, so an MCP buyer should read the 'mcp' index and an agent buyer the 'agent' index.
`response_mode`	No	'summary' (default) or 'full' (adds exact sub-0.01% moves and repricing counts).

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool reads the same canonical series as the /aepi page, returns an index rather than a market price, and outlines the returned fields. It does not explicitly state there are no side effects, but the read-only nature is strongly implied.

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 longer than minimal, but every sentence adds value: it explains what is returned, how the index is constructed, and how to choose among filters. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose, so it is efficiently structured.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description fully documents return values (change_1d/change_7d/change_30d, as_of, pair count, status, methodology version, plus tier breakdowns) and the meaning of each filter. This is comprehensive for a tool of this complexity.

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 coverage is 100% and all three schema params have descriptions. The description adds context for provider_type and response_mode, but it also references a benchmark_id parameter that is not present in the input schema, which could mislead an agent. This inconsistency prevents a higher score.

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 opens with 'Call this for the CURRENT level of the Agent Economy Price Index (AEPI)' – a specific verb, resource, and scope. It clearly distinguishes from get_price_index_history by emphasizing 'current' and from market_report/price_benchmark by stating those are for capability-specific pricing.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use and when not to: 'The economy index is whole-market by design — for pricing on a specific capability use market_report or price_benchmark.' It also explains when to use provider_type ('an MCP buyer should read the mcp index') and the role of response_mode.

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?