apis-io

cohort_rankings

Read-only

UNDERSTANDING — the leaderboard for a market, on TWO axes: rank by Kin Score composite AND rank by agent readiness. The two orders differ, and the gap between a provider's two ranks is usually the story. Priced per result — $0.005 per request plus $0.0002 per record returned (less past 100), capped at $0.50 a request, under pay-as-you-go; included in Understanding and Influence. Estimate first at /api/v1/prices/estimate. See apis://prices.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`kind`	Yes
`page`	No
`slug`	Yes
`limit`	No
`context`	No	Optional: why you are asking. One sentence — the task you are trying to complete, or what you expect to get back. Never included in the answer and never used to rank; it is read only when a result turns out to be wrong, which is when knowing the intent is what makes the report actionable.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedAug 27, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / context

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional: why you are asking. One sentence — the task you are trying to complete, or what you expect to get back. Never included in the answer and never used to rank; it is read only when a result turns out to be wrong, which is when knowing the intent is what makes the report actionable.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

AddedAug 20, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: returns two distinct orderings, emphasizes the rank gap as the key takeaway, and discloses per-result pricing with caps and plan inclusion. This goes beyond the bare annotation without contradicting it.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the interpretation note about rank gaps earns its place. The pricing details are somewhat redundant with the inline 'See apis://prices' pointer, but the description remains compact and well ordered.

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?

With no output schema and low schema coverage, the description should explain return shape and parameter mapping, but it does not describe what fields a result contains beyond two ranks. It is usable because read-only safety is annotated and the purpose is clear, but meaningful gaps remain around response format and pagination behavior.

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 20%, so the description must compensate, but it does not explain how `kind` and `slug` select the market/cohort, nor what `page` and `limit` control. The only parameter-adjacent detail is per-record pricing, which is about cost rather than parameter meaning.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a concrete resource, 'the leaderboard for a market', and specifies its two ranking axes, which distinguishes it from generic score/stats siblings like cohort_scores or cohort_stats. A verb is implied rather than stated, and the relationship between 'cohort' and 'market' is left undefined, but the object is clear enough for selection.

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 when to use it: for market leaderboards and cross-ranking 'gap' analysis. However, it names no alternatives, exclusions, or when-not-to-use conditions, and the pricing/estimate guidance is operational rather than a usage-selection rule.

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

All apis-io tools Inspect

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

Need Help?