Skip to main content
Glama

FutureSmart AI Demos

by com.aidemos

compare_tools

Evidence-aligned comparison of two tools, honesty enforced structurally: head_to_head (cells from the SAME test input — provable same-input comparison), related_not_same_input (same dimension, different runs — flagged), and each tool's unique evidence. Built from real observation cells with artifacts, not prose.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tool_aYesFirst tool slug, e.g. "llamaparse".
tool_bYesSecond tool slug, e.g. "landing-ai".
criterionNoOptional: restrict to one criterion.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses that comparisons are built from real observation cells with artifacts, not prose, and notes the structural honesty enforcement. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well.

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 informative and front-loaded, but slightly dense. It efficiently conveys key points without wasted words.

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, the description adequately explains the output structure (head-to-head, related_not_same_input, unique evidence). It provides sufficient context for the agent to understand what the tool returns.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents parameters clearly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool does an 'evidence-aligned comparison of two tools' and specifies the structural honesty mechanism, differentiating it from sibling tools like get_evidence or get_ranking.

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 for comparing two tools but does not explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it.

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

All FutureSmart AI Demos toolsInspect
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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Every tool targets a distinct entity or action: list tools enumerate different content types, get tools retrieve specific entities, search finds across the catalogue, compare_tools does head-to-head comparison, and the two cross-reference tools (rankings_for_tool and tools_in_ranking) are inverse operations. No two tools have overlapping purposes.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (list_*, get_*, compare_tools, search), but 'rankings_for_tool' and 'tools_in_ranking' deviate with a noun_prep_noun pattern. These two are internally consistent with each other and remain readable, so the overall convention is only slightly disrupted.

Tool Count4/5

16 tools is slightly above the ideal 3-15 range but still well-scoped for a catalogue covering seven entity types, search, comparison, and cross-references. Each tool has a distinct role and none are redundant, so the count feels justified rather than bloated.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers all major content types with list and get (except categories and toolkits, which only have list endpoints), plus search, comparison, and inverse cross-references. Minor gaps like missing get_toolkit or get_category are workaround-able since list_toolkits and list_categories expose sufficient metadata.

Resources