check_bill_markupCompares one billed line to the hospital's own published negotiated rate for that code and returns the multiple. You type the code and amount; no bill upload. Educational, not billing advice.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cpt | Yes | CPT/HCPCS procedure code. | |
| hospital | Yes | Hospital / facility name. | |
| billed_amount | Yes | Amount billed, USD. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds useful context beyond the annotations by stating the output is a 'multiple' and warning that it is educational rather than professional billing advice. This complements the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations without contradicting them.
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?
The description is extremely concise—three short sentences that convey purpose, user input requirements, and a caveat. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.
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?
The description adequately covers the tool's core purpose, input requirements, and a limiting caveat. It omits specific output formatting or error scenarios, but for a simple comparative tool, the information is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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?
The schema descriptions already cover all three parameters (CPT code, hospital name, billed amount) with clear meanings and constraints. The description simply reiterates that the user provides code and amount, adding no new formatting or usage details beyond the schema.
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 clearly states the tool's function: it compares a billed line to the hospital's published negotiated rate and returns the multiple. This distinct focus on comparing and outputting a multiple differentiates it from siblings like get_hospital_rate or lookup_procedure_code.
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?
It provides explicit instructions on what to input ('You type the code and amount') and a clear caveat ('Educational, not billing advice'). However, it does not contrast with sibling tools such as get_hospital_rate, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is preferable to alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.