Skip to main content
Glama

SigRank — AI Operator Benchmarking

by com.signalaf
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Field Anomaly — Unusual Patterns in the Leaderboard

field_anomaly
Read-onlyIdempotent

Finds unusual operators, metric relationships, and outliers in the live leaderboard — without user prompting. Returns: highest velocity among below-median leverage operators, only top-50 operator with near-zero cache write, largest 30-day yield improvement, rarest signature, and extreme divergence. Powers automated micro-marketing and field insights.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
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."

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

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only and idempotent; the description adds compatible behavioral detail by noting it runs on the 'live leaderboard' and is intended for 'without user prompting' proactive use. It lists what the tool returns, though it does not cover data freshness or any potential cost/rate limits. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words: the first front-loads the action and behavior, the second enumerates return highlights and the intended use case. Every clause adds decision-relevant content.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool has only two parameters, rich safety annotations, and no output schema, so the description partially compensates by listing specific return findings. However, it leaves the window parameter semantics ambiguous and provides no explicit alternative routing among the 15 sibling tools, making it adequate but not complete.

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 50%; the context parameter is explained in the schema, but the window parameter has only an enum and no semantic explanation. The description does not mention how window affects the anomaly search or clarify why '30-day yield improvement' is listed when a window is selectable, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 states a specific action ('Finds unusual operators, metric relationships, and outliers in the live leaderboard') and lists concrete outputs such as 'highest velocity among below-median leverage operators' and 'extreme divergence.' This clearly separates it from sibling tools like get_leaderboard or rank_windows, which focus on standard leaderboard retrieval or ranking.

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 clear context for when to invoke it: 'without user prompting' and 'Powers automated micro-marketing and field insights.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the automation-oriented framing is enough to route the agent in most cases.

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