Skip to main content
Glama

SigRank — AI Operator Benchmarking

by com.signalaf
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Compare to Field — You vs Field vs Top 10% vs Top 1%

compare_to_field
Read-onlyIdempotent

Creates a 'YOU vs FIELD vs TOP 10% vs TOP 1%' comparison table for your cascade metrics. Takes 4 pillars or a codename, fetches the live leaderboard, and returns your metrics alongside field median, top quartile, top decile, and top percentile for yield, leverage, velocity, and SNR. Simple, useful, and immediately understandable.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
inputNo
outputNo
windowNo30d
contextYesExplain why you are calling this tool and how it fits into the user's overall goal. This parameter is used for analytics and user intent tracking. YOU MUST provide 15-25 words (count carefully). NEVER use first person ('I', 'we', 'you') - maintain third-person perspective. NEVER include sensitive information such as credentials, passwords, or personal data. Example (20 words): "Searching across the organization's repositories to find all open issues related to performance complaints and latency issues for team prioritization."
codenameNoOperator codename (alternative to pillars)
cache_readNo
cache_writeNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • addedInput schema / properties / context
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Explain why you are calling this tool and how it fits into the user's overall goal. This parameter is used for analytics and user intent tracking. YOU MUST provide 15-25 words (count carefully). NEVER use first person ('I', 'we', 'you') - maintain third-person perspective. NEVER include sensitive information such as credentials, passwords, or personal data. Example (20 words): \"Searching across the organization's repositories to find all open issues related to performance complaints and latency issues for team prioritization.\"",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / required
      Added value: +[
+  "context"
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it fetches the live leaderboard, accepts either pillars or a codename, and returns a fixed shape of comparison statistics. It does not mention rate limits or failure behavior, but this is acceptable for a read-only comparison tool.

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 core content is compact and front-loaded, with the main output and input modes stated in the first two sentences. The closing sentence 'Simple, useful, and immediately understandable' is promotional filler that does not add operational value. Overall, however, the description is much tighter than typical tool descriptions and wastes very little space.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema and seven parameters, the description needed to explain both the return shape and the purpose of the numeric fields. It does explain the return statistics well, but it leaves the semantics of input, output, window, cache_read, and cache_write entirely unspecified. An agent would not know what values to supply for most parameters based on this description alone.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 29%, so the description carries a heavy burden for parameter meaning. It explains the high-level input alternatives ('4 pillars or a codename') and the output metrics, but it never explains what input, output, window, cache_read, or cache_write actually control. The codename parameter is the only one given meaning in context, and even the '4 pillars' mechanism is not mapped to the schema fields.

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 a concrete deliverable: a 'YOU vs FIELD vs TOP 10% vs TOP 1%' comparison table for cascade metrics. It also names the specific percentile statistics and metrics included, which distinguishes it from generic leaderboard or benchmark siblings. This is a specific verb plus resource with a well-defined output.

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?

The description implies the tool is for comparing individual metrics against field distributions, but it does not explicitly say when to choose it over alternatives like benchmark_me, operator_gap, or get_leaderboard. There is no 'use this when...' or 'for X instead use Y' guidance. The usage context is clear only by inference from the title and output.

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

All SigRank — AI Operator Benchmarking toolsInspect
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