Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

apis-io

by io.apis
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

find_rating_movers

Read-only

UNDERSTANDING — The biggest rating movers (up and down) since the previous scoring build. 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

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoResults per page, 1-100 (default 25).
contextNoOptional: one sentence on why you are asking. Never used to rank; read only if a result is wrong.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / context / description
      Previous value: -"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."New value: +"Optional: one sentence on why you are asking. Never used to rank; read only if a result is wrong."
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit / description
      Added value: +"Results per page, 1-100 (default 25)."
  3. Changed1 schema field changed
    • 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"
+}
  4. Added

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the description's real contribution is the pricing behavior: $0.005/request plus $0.0002/record, decreasing past 100, capped at $0.50, with plan inclusion and an estimate endpoint. That is genuinely decision-relevant context the annotations do not carry, though it omits what a 'mover' record contains.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the pricing block. The dense cost breakdown is verbose but arguably earns its place for a metered tool, keeping the overall structure efficient and readable.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a metered, read-only list tool with no output schema and two optional params, the description covers purpose, cost, and cost-estimation path well. It leaves the shape of a returned mover undefined, which is a minor gap given no output schema exists to rely on.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters (limit, context) are already fully documented in the schema. The description's 'per record returned' loosely ties output volume to the limit, but adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline 3.

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?

States a specific resource and dimension: the biggest rating movers (up and down) since the previous scoring build. This is distinguishable from sibling read tools like get_rating_history (a single entity's history) and find_ratings (a static list). It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling to route against, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative tool is named. The only procedural hint ('Estimate first at /api/v1/prices/estimate') concerns cost, not tool selection, so the agent must infer whether this beats find_ratings or get_rating_history.

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

All apis-io toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources