BidBud Estimating

Check whether a contractor quote is fair

check_quote

Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare a contractor's quoted price with BidBud's likely range for the same scope.

Prices the scope at economy, mid-range and premium quality and judges the
quote against the likely range (confidence band) of the quality level being
compared. Verdicts: "low" (below the range: ask what is excluded), "fair",
"high" (above the range but within premium pricing) and "very_high" (above
even the premium range).

When to use: a homeowner has a contractor's price and asks whether it is
reasonable.
Limits: judges the price only, not the contractor, workmanship or exact
materials; US residential homes only; a planning comparison, not an
appraisal or a bid.

Args:
    quoted_price: The contractor's total price in USD for the listed services.
    home_sqft: Finished square footage of the home.
    num_rooms: Number of rooms.
    services: The services the quote covers.
    quality_tier: Quality level the quote is for: "economy", "medium"
        (mid-range, default) or "high" (premium).
    zip_code: US ZIP code of the property, for regional labor pricing.
    state: Two-letter state code, used when the ZIP is unknown.
    stories: Above-grade stories (1, 1.5, 2 or 3; default 1).
    flooring_type: For flooring quotes: carpet, tile, vinyl, hardwood or mix.
    num_windows: For window quotes: number of windows being replaced.
    roof_pitch: Roof slope if known: low, standard, steep or very_steep.
    roof_shape: gable, hip or complex.
    home_type: detached, townhouse_end, townhouse_middle or condo.
    year_built: Year the home was built (before 1978 adds lead-safe work practices).

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`state`	No
`stories`	No
`services`	Yes
`zip_code`	No
`home_sqft`	Yes
`home_type`	No
`num_rooms`	Yes
`roof_pitch`	No
`roof_shape`	No
`year_built`	No
`num_windows`	No
`quality_tier`	No	medium
`quoted_price`	Yes
`flooring_type`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 18, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the description focuses on value-add: it explains the four verdicts and what each implies ('low' means ask what is excluded), and it states what the tool does NOT assess (contractor, workmanship, materials) plus the US-residential limitation. For a read-only comparison tool, that is comprehensive behavioural disclosure.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is front-loaded with purpose, then verdict definitions, when-to-use, limits, and a structured Args block. The length is justified by the 14-parameter schema with zero description coverage, and no sentence is decorative.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description still explains verdict semantics so an agent can interpret the result directly. Combined with the limits section and full parameter documentation, an agent has everything needed to decide when to call it and how to populate all required and optional fields.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry all 14 parameters—and it does. Each arg gets a short gloss, including units (USD, square feet), enums and defaults (quality_tier medium, stories 1), conditional relationships (state used when ZIP unknown; year_built before 1978 triggers lead-safe practices) and service-specific fields (flooring_type, num_windows). This adds genuine meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 a specific verb+resource: comparing a contractor's quoted price against BidBud's likely range for the same scope. It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like estimate_project (no quote given) and compare_tiers (comparing quality tiers rather than validating a price). The verdict vocabulary further pins down what the tool produces.

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?

It gives an explicit when-to-use trigger ('a homeowner has a contractor's price and asks whether it is reasonable') and a scope-limiting section ('judges the price only... US residential homes only; a planning comparison, not an appraisal or a bid'). It does not, however, name the sibling alternative to use when no contractor quote exists, so it stops short of the top score.

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

All BidBud Estimating tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?