Skip to main content
Glama

Stratalize Intelligence

by com.stratalize

get_stratalize_overview

Read-only

START HERE — Returns the complete Stratalize tool catalog: governed MCP tools across finance, healthcare, governance, real estate, crypto, and intelligence. Available via public MCP (no auth) or x402 micropayments on Base ($0.02 atomic · $0.10 benchmark · $0.50 synthesis · $1.00 premium · $3.00 outcome pack). Org intelligence, agent governance, and role briefs require OAuth. Call this first to discover tools by role or vertical.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

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 and destructiveHint=false, so safe read is known. Description adds meaningful context: auth requirements (public/no-auth vs OAuth), payment/pricing tiers, and scope (governed tools across multiple verticals), 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?

Description is front-loaded with 'START HERE — Returns the complete Stratalize tool catalog' in the first sentence. Each subsequent sentence adds distinct value (verticals, access methods, pricing, call order) with no filler 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?

For a zero-parameter discovery tool without output schema, the description covers purpose, access/auth, pricing model, and explicit call order. It provides enough context for an agent to decide this is the first tool to invoke before using domain-specific siblings.

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?

Tool has zero parameters and empty schema, so schema coverage is 100%. The description compensates by outlining what the response contains (tool catalog by vertical and role), which is sufficient; no parameter clarification needed.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Returns' and resource 'complete Stratalize tool catalog', clearly distinguishing from sibling data tools. 'START HERE' and 'discover tools by role or vertical' establish it as discovery entry point, not one of the domain-specific get_* tools.

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?

Explicitly instructs 'Call this first to discover tools by role or vertical', giving clear when-to-use. Also distinguishes access modes (public MCP vs x402 micropayments vs OAuth), but does not name specific sibling alternatives or when-not-to-use cases.

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

All Stratalize Intelligence 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

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools overlap significantly: get_vendor_benchmark and get_vendor_market_rate both return pricing benchmarks with median/low/high; get_industry_spend_benchmark, get_industry_spend_profile, get_category_spend_benchmark, and get_spend_by_company_size all address spend benchmarking; get_saas_market_intelligence, get_category_ai_leaders, get_sector_ai_intelligence, and get_market_intelligence_brief all cover AI citation and market themes. These overlapping purposes make tool selection ambiguous.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tools follow the 'get_' prefix consistently, creating a predictable pattern. However, the object naming is inconsistent in ordering (e.g., get_category_ai_leaders vs get_top_vendors_by_category) and some use 'synthesis' vs 'signal' vs 'benchmark' without a clear rule. Overall, the pattern is readable and consistent.

Tool Count2/5

With 45 tools, the surface is extremely large. While the server's scope is broad (market intelligence, vendor benchmarks, regulatory data, etc.), this count overwhelms an agent and dilutes focus. Many related tools could be consolidated (e.g., vendor benchmarking into one tool with modes). A typical well-scoped server would be 3-15 tools.

Completeness3/5

The server covers numerous domains with read-only intelligence, including market trends, vendor pricing, compensation, regulatory, and patent data. However, there are gaps within those domains: no historical trend comparison, no side-by-side vendor comparison across multiple metrics beyond alternatives, and no write or action capabilities. The breadth is impressive, but the depth is uneven.

Resources