Skip to main content
Glama

savvly

by com.savvly

Compare Savvly vs Alternative Product

compare_savvly_vs_alternative
Read-onlyIdempotent

Get a structured comparison between Savvly and another retirement product type — use it whenever the user compares Savvly to annuities, target-date funds, managed-payout funds, or any alternative, or asks how Savvly stacks up. It renders an interactive comparison widget the user expects to see. Pass 'all' for the full matrix, or a specific product type. These facts come from Savvly's own current records; the response includes primary sources (e.g. SEC filings) for reference.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
alternativeNoWhich product type to compare Savvly against. Use EXACTLY one of: 'fixed_annuity', 'variable_annuity', 'indexed_annuity', 'target_date_fund', 'managed_payout_fund', or 'all' for the full matrix. Pick a SPECIFIC annuity subtype — there is no generic 'annuity'.all

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
savvlyYesSavvly's profile across the comparison dimensions.
metadataYesComparison dimensions, definitions, and source notes.
comparisonNoThe selected alternative product's profile. Present when `alternative` is a specific product type (i.e. not 'all').
comparisonsNoFull comparison matrix — one entry per alternative product type. Present when `alternative` is 'all'.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context beyond those: it explains the data source ('Savvly's own current records'), mentions that primary sources like SEC filings are included, and notes the interactive widget behavior. This adds meaningful transparency without contradicting 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?

The description is compact, with the main purpose and usage guidance front-loaded. Each sentence earns its place: the first states the action and use case; the second covers the widget, parameter options, and data source. No fluff or repetition.

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?

Given that there is an output schema, the response format is already specified. The tool has only one optional parameter with an enum, and the description covers usage, parameter handling, data provenance, and widget behavior. There is nothing an agent needs to call this tool correctly that is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the 'alternative' parameter and its allowed enum values. The description adds extra value by clarifying the use of 'all' for the full matrix and explicitly warning that 'there is no generic annuity' — guiding the agent to pick a specific subtype. This goes beyond repeating the schema, so it deserves a 4.

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 specific action ('Get a structured comparison') and resource ('between Savvly and another retirement product type'). It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming the scenarios it covers ('whenever the user compares Savvly to annuities, target-date funds, managed-payout funds, or any alternative'). This is a unique, non-tautological purpose.

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 gives explicit trigger conditions ('use it whenever the user compares...') and also explains the parameter choices ('Pass 'all' for the full matrix, or a specific product type'). It does not explicitly name sibling tools for when not to use it, but the conditions are clear enough to route an agent correctly. Slightly lacking an explicit 'when not to use' but still strong.

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

All savvly 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

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

The three projection tools (project_retirement_with_savvly, project_savvly_lumpsum, project_savvly_monthly) share a scenario-based boundary that is reasonably clear but has some overlap — the full retirement simulation could conceptually subsume the lump-sum and monthly scenarios. The FAQ tool explicitly documents its overlap with search_savvly_content, which mitigates confusion. The eligibility, product info, and comparison tools are clearly distinct.

Naming Consistency5/5

Every tool follows a clean verb_savvly_noun convention in snake_case: check, compare, get, get, project, project, project, search. The pattern is perfectly predictable across the set, with the three projection tools sharing the 'project' verb and differing only in their object (retirement_with_savvly, savvly_lumpsum, savvly_monthly).

Tool Count5/5

Eight tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range and is appropriately scoped for a retirement advisory server. Each tool earns its place: eligibility checks, product info, FAQ, content search, comparison, and three distinct projection modes cover the server's stated purpose without redundancy bloat.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers the full advisory lifecycle well: eligibility screening, product overview, FAQ, content search, competitive comparison, and three projection scenarios (full retirement, lump-sum, monthly). Minor gaps exist — there is no enrollment/purchase tool or a standalone pricing/quote tool — but these are arguably outside an information-advisory scope, so agents can complete core workflows without dead ends.

Resources