Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

apis-io

by io.apis
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

get_rating_history

Read-only

UNDERSTANDING — A provider's REAL score time series: one point per scored build (composite + agent readiness on each date), plus a summary of the movement over the window — first/last, net change, direction, and the largest single-build jump with the date it happened. Not an implied previous point; these are the recorded snapshots. Priced B1 (single-entity synthesis) — $0.01 per call under pay-as-you-go; included in Understanding and Influence. See apis://prices.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
slugYesProvider slug — lowercase, hyphenated, as find_providers returns it, e.g. "stripe".
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 / slug / description
      Added value: +"Provider slug — lowercase, hyphenated, as find_providers returns it, e.g. \"stripe\"."
  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

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the composite vs agent-readiness dimension, the snapshot-vs-implied distinction, and the pricing tier ($0.01/call, included in Understanding and Influence) — an unusual but genuinely useful cost signal for invocation decisions.

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?

Content is front-loaded with the return shape and the key snapshot caveat before the pricing details. It is dense but each sentence carries information; the pricing boilerplate and 'See apis://prices' are the slightly padded portion.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the heavy lifting of explaining exactly what comes back (per-build points, first/last, net change, direction, largest jump with date), which is strong. It omits date-window/range behavior, which for a 'history' tool leaves a minor gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, with slug and context both documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter meaning (e.g. date-range scoping), which a caller might otherwise expect from a 'history' tool.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('a provider's REAL score time series') and pins down the exact return content: one point per scored build with composite + agent readiness per date. It also carves out a distinct niche from siblings like find_ratings and find_rating_movers by clarifying these are 'recorded snapshots,' not an implied previous point.

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 use case (retrieving a provider's historical score movement) but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it name the alternative tools (get_provider_rating, find_ratings, find_rating_movers) that overlap with this data.

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