Gemral Edge

Compare Management Teams

compare_management_teams

Side-by-side comparative execution analysis across multiple companies or peer group competitors. Compares realization rates, guidance accuracy, miss rates, and total historical claims.

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": {
      "tickers": "<tickers>"
    },
    "name": "compare_management_teams"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tickers`	Yes	List of company tickers to compare, e.g. ["NVDA", "INTC", "AMD"]
`category`	No	Optional category filter, e.g. financial_guidance or product_milestone

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`notice`	No	Free-tier upgrade notice; only when results are masked/delayed.
`results`	Yes	Tool result payload (read-only evidence). Shape varies by tool; scoring weights are never exposed.
`history_limit`	No	Present when the license limits history depth: earliest_allowed date, history_days and how many older items were removed.
`deprecated_fields`	No	Present only while a renamed key is still returned next to its replacement: field (old key), replacement (new key, same value), removal (ISO date after which the old key is gone).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 26, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / deprecated_fields

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Present only while a renamed key is still returned next to its replacement: field (old key), replacement (new key, same value), removal (ISO date after which the old key is gone).",
+  "items": {
+    "additionalProperties": true,
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows the safety profile. The description adds useful context about which metrics are compared, but it does not explain why a comparison tool is marked non-read-only, whether any side effects occur, or what limits apply beyond the schema. It adds some behavioral context but not rich disclosure.

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?

The description is two tight sentences with no filler. The comparative scope is front-loaded, and the metric list follows efficiently. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values, and the input schema fully documents parameters. The description supplies useful comparative scope and metric coverage. The main missing piece is explicit routing guidance against similar siblings, but otherwise it is complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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%, so both parameters and their examples are already documented. The description mentions comparing across multiple companies, which loosely maps to the tickers parameter, but it does not mention the optional category filter or add syntax details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific comparative analysis purpose: side-by-side execution analysis across multiple companies or peer groups. It names the compared dimensions (realization rates, guidance accuracy, miss rates, total historical claims), making the resource clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from single-company siblings like get_guidance_accuracy or get_management_credibility, but the multi-company framing is clear enough.

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 the tool by saying it compares multiple companies or peer group competitors, which distinguishes it from single-company analysis. However, it gives no explicit when-not guidance or alternatives, such as when to use get_guidance_accuracy or get_track_record instead. Usage is inferable but not clearly stated.

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

All Gemral Edge 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.