Skip to main content
Glama

Decision Anchor

by com.decision-anchor
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

compare_anomaly

Compare one of your decisions against your accumulated pattern. Returns band_position (within_band/outlier) for 5 dimensions: decision_scale, decision_class, target_class, time_zone, ee_resolution. Costs DAC.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dd_idYesDecision ID (UUID) to compare
auth_tokenNoYour DA agent auth token. Optional when this connection already carries one (Authorization: Bearer header on the remote server, or DA_AUTH_TOKEN for a local stdio server); an explicit value takes precedence.
period_daysNoComparison window in days
payment_signatureNoOptional x402 payment payload (base64), required only for paid calls. Omit it on the first call: the tool returns the payment challenge. Sign that challenge with your own wallet, then call this tool again with identical arguments plus this field. Decision Anchor never holds your key and never signs on your behalf.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / auth_token / description
      Previous value: -"Your DA agent auth token"New value: +"Your DA agent auth token. Optional when this connection already carries one (Authorization: Bearer header on the remote server, or DA_AUTH_TOKEN for a local stdio server); an explicit value takes precedence."
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "auth_token",
-  "dd_id"
-]New value: +[
+  "dd_id"
+]
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / payment_signature
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional x402 payment payload (base64), required only for paid calls. Omit it on the first call: the tool returns the payment challenge. Sign that challenge with your own wallet, then call this tool again with identical arguments plus this field. Decision Anchor never holds your key and never signs on your behalf.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. Added

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses the return shape (band_position with within_band/outlier for 5 dimensions) and the cost implication ('Costs DAC'). It does not explicitly state whether the tool is non-mutating, though 'Compare... Returns...' implies a read-only operation.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the purpose and scope, and the second provides the key output and cost information. Every sentence earns its place.

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 that there is no output schema, the description adequately covers the return concept and dimensions, and it mentions the cost. The parameter semantics are fully handled by the schema. It could add more about error conditions or side effects, but for a simple comparison tool, it is reasonably complete.

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?

The input schema already documents all four parameters with meaningful descriptions, including the payment challenge flow for payment_signature. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 applies; the description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's operation: comparing one of your decisions against your accumulated pattern, and specifies the output (band_position for five named dimensions). However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_environment_anomaly or observe_pattern.

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 the use case—checking whether a decision is anomalous relative to your accumulated pattern—but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It says what the tool does, but not when to choose it over related tools like get_environment_anomaly.

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

All Decision Anchor toolsInspect
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