Skip to main content
Glama

The Front Desk Review

by com.frontdeskreview

Most volatile in category

most_volatile_in_category
Read-onlyIdempotent

Within one category/theme, the entities whose prices have moved the most (ranked by volatility score), plus the category price baseline (count, median current, low/high). Entities without enough recorded movement are omitted from the ranking but counted in the baseline. Answers 'which X changes price most' for a market.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindNoLimit to 'hw' (hardware product) or 'sw' (software vendor). Omit to match either; a slug is resolved across both.
limitNoMax ranked entities (default 25).
categoryYesCategory/theme slug (e.g. 'gpus', 'crm-software').

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds detail about omission of entities with insufficient movement and inclusion in baseline count, plus baseline stats output, enriching transparency beyond the annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences: first states what is returned (ranked entities + baseline), second explains omission policy and use case. No wasted words, efficient and front-loaded.

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?

The description covers the main output components and omission criteria. However, it does not define the volatility scoring metric or the exact output format, which would be helpful given there is no output schema. Still, it is fairly complete for a read-only query tool.

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?

All three parameters are fully documented in the input schema (100% coverage). The description does not add new semantic information about the parameters beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 returns ranked volatile entities per category with baseline stats, and answers a specific use case. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'price_movers' or 'volatility_for_entity', leaving some ambiguity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only hint is the final sentence about answering 'which X changes price most', which is insufficient for choosing among similar siblings.

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

All The Front Desk Review 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

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Tools have distinct purposes, but some overlap exists between 'compare' and 'compare_products' (both do side-by-side comparisons, one for vendors, one for products). However, descriptions clarify the domain difference, and most tools have clear boundaries.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., list_sections, search_vendors, get_benchmark). No mixed conventions or vague verbs.

Tool Count4/5

19 tools is slightly on the higher side but appropriate for a comprehensive pricing index covering 271 themes. Each tool has a clear role, and the count does not feel bloated.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers listing, searching, comparing, finding, detailed info retrieval, and price change tracking. No obvious gaps for the domain of pricing and comparison.

Resources