get_comparisonFetch the full structured body of a published competitor comparison by slug. Returns content_json (the structured breakdown: pricing, recent moves, positioning, displacement signals, when-to-choose, etc.) plus metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Comparison slug from list_comparisons. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description states it returns structured content but does not disclose read-only nature, auth requirements, rate limits, or any side effects. Minimal transparency beyond basic output.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, both meaningful. Purpose stated first, then return value details. No redundant or filler content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple fetch tool with one param and no output schema, description adequately explains what is returned (content_json with structured breakdown). Could mention it requires a previously obtained slug, but schema already covers that.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter, already describing it as 'Comparison slug from list_comparisons.' Description does not add further meaning beyond what schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses specific verb 'Fetch' and resource 'full structured body of a published competitor comparison by slug', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like list_comparisons (which lists slugs) and find_competitors.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you have a slug from list_comparisons but lacks explicit when-to-use vs alternatives like get_competitive_profile or get_report, or any when-not conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of competitive intelligence—competitor discovery, detailed comparisons, market landscapes, pricing changes, strategic moves, and reports—with no functional overlap. The descriptions clearly differentiate their purposes.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., find_competitors, get_comparison, list_markets), with verbs like 'find', 'get', 'list', and 'subscribe' appropriately chosen. No mixing of conventions.
With 12 tools, the server is well-scoped for a competitive intelligence domain. Each tool serves a clear function, and the count is neither too small nor overwhelming for an agent to navigate.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle: discovering competitors, obtaining profiles, comparing them, viewing market landscapes, tracking pricing and strategic moves, and accessing reports. There are no obvious missing operations for the stated purpose.