Geo-Parity

Compare Healthcare Costs & Exposure

compare_healthcare

Read-onlyIdempotent

Healthcare cost and financial exposure across 41 countries: out-of-pocket spend per person per year (US$), out-of-pocket as a share of all health spending, total health spend per capita (PPP international $), government funding share, physicians per 1,000 and dentists per 10,000. Figures are MEASURED from World Bank and WHO Global Health Observatory series, never derived from a price index: scaling healthcare by a country's general price level overstates costs abroad by 1.2x-5.4x, because health prices do not track the price level (the US is an outlier and several countries deliberately price healthcare below their own economies). Share and burden are separate facts and both are returned - the US pays only ~11% out of pocket, a low share, but the highest absolute amount. Dental is reported as ACCESS (dentist density), not price: no free citable source publishes procedure prices. National averages, not a quote for any individual's care. Not medical, insurance or financial advice.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`sort`	No	Metric to rank by. 'outOfPocket' = out-of-pocket spend per person per year (default, the figure a person actually pays); 'spend' = total health spend per capita; 'exposure' = out-of-pocket as a share of health spending; 'doctors' = physicians per 1,000 (ranked best-first); 'dentists' = dentists per 10,000 (best-first).	outOfPocket
`country`	No	Optional ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code (case-insensitive). Echoes that country's row and its rank under the active sort.
`maxOutOfPocketPct`	No	Optional filter: keep only countries where households pay at most this percentage of health spending directly.
`minPhysiciansPer1000`	No	Optional filter: keep only countries with at least this many physicians per 1,000 people.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ok`	No
`rows`	No	Countries under the active sort, best first.
`focus`	No	The requested country's row, when `country` was given.
`updated`	No	ISO date the underlying data was last refreshed.
`excluded`	No	Countries removed by filters or missing the sorted metric.
`attribution`	No	Sources, a quotable citation and a permalink.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 1, 2026

addedInput schema / examples

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "country": "TH",
+    "sort": "outOfPocket"
+  }
+]

First observedSep 1, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With annotations already confirming a safe read-only, idempotent, non-destructive call, the description still adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: data provenance (World Bank/WHO measured series, never price-index derived), the explicit warning that shares and absolute burden are separate facts, the decision to report dental as access rather than price, and the national-average/not-advice disclaimer. This is exactly the kind of limitation disclosure that prevents misuse.

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?

The opening sentence is front-loaded with the tool's core output and scope, and the content is dense rather than padded. It runs long for an MCP description and includes illustrative asides (the 1.2x-5.4x overstatement figure, the US ~11% example) that justify methodology more than they guide invocation, but nothing is purely redundant.

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 read-only comparison tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs: metric definitions, units, country scope, data source, interpretation caveats, and what the tool deliberately does not do. Return-value explanation is correctly left to the output schema.

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% and each parameter (sort enum, country code, the two numeric filters) is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description's metric list loosely corresponds to the sort enum but adds no syntax, format, or unit detail beyond what the schema already gives.

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 names a specific verb and resource (healthcare cost and financial exposure) and enumerates the exact metrics returned (out-of-pocket spend, share of spending, total spend per capita PPP, government share, physician/dentist density) plus a clear scope of 41 countries. It is unambiguous about what the tool produces, but it never distinguishes itself from the closely related sibling compare_health_capacity, which likely also covers physician density.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it should use this to compare healthcare cost/burden across countries, and the description usefully excludes some interpretations (not a price index comparison, not an individual quote, not advice). However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no named alternative (e.g. compare_health_capacity for capacity-only questions), so routing relies on inference.

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

All Geo-Parity 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?