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). Use it when a homeowner asks "is this bid reasonable?".

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

TableJSON 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

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 18, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: it discloses that output is a confidence-band comparison across three quality tiers and explains what each verdict means and implies ("low ... ask what is excluded"). It says nothing about pricing staleness, regional coverage limits or error behavior, which would push it higher.

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?

Purpose, mechanism, verdicts and usage trigger are front-loaded before the argument list, and the 14-argument block is unavoidable given the schema. The second sentence partially restates the first (quality tiers are mentioned twice), a minor redundancy.

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 14-parameter, read-only computation with an output schema, the description supplies everything needed to call it correctly: required inputs are obvious, optional ones are explained, and return semantics are summarized even though the output schema exists.

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% across 14 parameters, so the description carries the entire burden — and it does, annotating every argument with units, defaults and intent (quoted_price in USD, quality_tier default medium, stories default 1, state used when ZIP is unknown, year_built triggers lead-safe practices).

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource (compare a contractor's quoted price against BidBud's likely range) and enumerates the four verdicts it can return, so the function is unmistakable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like estimate_project or compare_tiers, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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?

"Use it when a homeowner asks 'is this bid reasonable?'" gives a concrete triggering context, which is better than implied usage. It names no alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to prefer estimate_project for a scope with no existing quote), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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?