Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Dueback

by io.github.dunrossmai-rgb
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Detect negotiable bill

detect_negotiable_bill
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check whether a bill looks negotiable. Returns {negotiable, category_label, pitch}. Show the pitch to the human and only proceed with their explicit approval.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "expense_description": "<expense_description>"
    },
    "name": "detect_negotiable_bill"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
amount_centsNoThe amount charged, in cents (e.g. 8500 means $85.00), if known.
counterpartyNoThe company that charges the bill (e.g. 'Comcast'), if known.
observed_signalsNoFacts suggesting the price may be negotiable or incorrect — e.g. a recent increase, a lower advertised price, a billing error, a competitor offer, or long customer tenure. Omit if none.
expense_descriptionYesPlain-language description of the bill or expense — what the charge is for, e.g. 'monthly home internet bill'.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / amount_cents / description
      Added value: +"The amount charged, in cents (e.g. 8500 means $85.00), if known."
    • addedInput schema / properties / counterparty / description
      Added value: +"The company that charges the bill (e.g. 'Comcast'), if known."
    • addedInput schema / properties / expense_description / description
      Added value: +"Plain-language description of the bill or expense — what the charge is for, e.g. 'monthly home internet bill'."
    • addedInput schema / properties / observed_signals / description
      Added value: +"Facts suggesting the price may be negotiable or incorrect — e.g. a recent increase, a lower advertised price, a billing error, a competitor offer, or long customer tenure. Omit if none."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a human-in-the-loop requirement before proceeding, which is useful process context, but it does not explain confidence thresholds, failure modes, or what 'negotiable: false' implies.

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?

Three compact sentences: what it does, what it returns, and the procedural constraint. Front-loaded with the purpose and free of filler.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't enumerate return fields, yet it helpfully names the three key outputs and tells the agent how to act on the pitch. Only sibling differentiation is missing, keeping it just under a 5.

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% and each parameter carries a clear description (amount in cents, counterparty example, observed_signals examples), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The tool description adds no parameter guidance, which is acceptable at this coverage level.

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 verb and resource: 'Check whether a bill looks negotiable,' which is a classification/assessment action distinguishable from sibling actions like start_negotiation_case. It does not explicitly name a sibling or contrast itself against one, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Gives a clear in-workflow instruction: show the returned pitch to the human and only proceed with explicit approval. That establishes context and a consent gate, though it doesn't state when to prefer a different sibling tool or when not to call this one at all.

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

All Dueback 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