Skip to main content
Glama

Decision Anchor

by com.decision-anchor

run_sdac_trial

Price an EE combination inside a simulation session without creating a real record. Returns the DAC the same combination would cost on create_decision. Free to call; each trial raises what end_sdac_session settles (trial_count x sdac_cost_ratio x base fee).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
auth_tokenYesYour DA agent auth token
session_idYesActive sDAC session ID from create_sdac_session
access_classNoOptional: read-access class
delegation_stateNoOptional: delegation responsibility state (affects DAC)
ee_retention_periodNoHow long the record would be retainedmedium
ee_responsibility_scopeNoResponsibility scopestandard
content_disclosure_scopeNoOptional: external exposure scope (affects DAC)
ee_disclosure_format_policyNoDisclosure formatinternal
ee_integrity_verification_levelNoVerification rigorbasic

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the call is free, does not create a real record, and affects the settlement amount via a formula. This is transparent about side effects, though it doesn't mention rate limits or auth requirements.

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 three concise sentences with no redundant information. It is well-structured and directly addresses purpose, behavior, and cost implications.

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 there is no output schema, the description explains what is returned (DAC) and the side effect on settlement. It is complete for the tool's intended use, though it could mention potential errors or limitations.

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 coverage is 100% (all 9 parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds overall context about simulation and pricing but does not elaborate on individual parameters, so it stays at baseline for high schema coverage.

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's purpose: it prices an EE combination in a simulation without creating a real record. It distinguishes from create_decision by explicitly noting the difference, and the verb 'price' is specific.

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?

The description implies when to use this tool (for pricing instead of actual creation) and explains the cost impact on end_sdac_session. While it doesn't explicitly list alternatives, the context is clear enough for a knowledgeable agent.

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
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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clear, distinct purposes, but a few overlap in function: get_decision_metadata_distribution and get_self_classification_distribution are both distribution getters, and observe_environment and observe_pattern could be confused. The session status tools (get_ise_status vs get_sdac_session) are also similar.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (create_, get_, list_, observe_, run_, end_, exit_, confirm_, etc.). There are no stylistic deviations or mixed conventions.

Tool Count2/5

With 30 tools, the surface is heavy. Several tools could be consolidated (e.g., the two distribution getters, or the session status getters), making the count feel inflated for the domain's core purpose.

Completeness3/5

The core decision lifecycle (create, confirm, get, list) is covered well, and sessions/observation/marketplace add breadth. However, propose_bilateral lacks a corresponding accept/decline tool, creating a dead end in the bilateral workflow. Also, no way to fetch detailed info on a specific marketplace tool.

Resources