Skip to main content
Glama

Decision Anchor

by com.decision-anchor
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Compare Decision Against Pattern

compare_anomaly
Destructive

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

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, which would otherwise be puzzling for a comparison, and the description explains it by disclosing 'Costs DAC' — the agent learns the call consumes credit irreversibly. It also previews the return payload (band_position per dimension), which adds value. It does not detail the payment-challenge flow, though the schema's payment_signature description covers that.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the return contract, then the cost. Nothing is redundant, and putting 'Costs DAC' last is the right ordering since it is a gating fact rather than the primary purpose.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return contract and does so concretely (five named dimensions with within_band/outlier values). It also surfaces the DAC cost. The remaining gap is routing guidance relative to sibling analysis tools, which keeps this from being fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so dd_id, auth_token, period_days, and payment_signature are all documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (e.g., which period_days value is meaningful or what the comparison window defaults to beyond the schema default), so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (compare) and resource (one of your decisions vs your accumulated pattern), and names the exact output shape: band_position with five enumerated dimensions. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like observe_pattern or get_environment_anomaly, which do not compare a specific decision.

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 phrase 'Compare one of your decisions against your accumulated pattern' implies context (you have a dd_id and want to know if it is an outlier), but it never states when to prefer this over observe_pattern or get_environment_anomaly, nor any prerequisites such as having a prior pattern. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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
Context All Your Agents Can ShareAgents share what they learn, hand off work, and hold it when you switch models. Start with 5 GB free.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources