GCC Portfolio Rank
gf.gcc_portfolio_rankRank 2-12 product scenarios by economics and risk. Price: 5.00 USDC via x402.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| products | Yes | ||
| referralCode | No | ||
| paymentSignature | No |
GF Agent Toll
TDQS
B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The 'Price: 5.00 USDC via x402' statement is a useful behavioral disclosure not available from annotations. However, with no annotations, the description still omits whether this is read-only, how payment is captured, what happens on payment failure, or whether any side effects occur.
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?
Two short sentences with no filler. The ranking purpose is front-loaded and the price/payment method is stated compactly. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a 15-field product array, payment parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is too thin. It lacks output format, field-level guidance, payment flow details, and any decision criteria for when the paid ranking is appropriate.
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 0%, and the description does not explain the products array, referralCode, or paymentSignature beyond implying 'product scenarios.' Required fields like product_value and expected_sale_price are self-explanatory, but the many optional economics fields and payment parameters remain unexplained.
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?
Description clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Rank 2-12 product scenarios by economics and risk.' The 2-12 range differentiates it from single-product siblings like gf.gcc_product_decision and gf.gcc_opportunity_score, making the tool's purpose immediately identifiable.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many commerce-related siblings. It does not mention alternatives such as gf.free_profit_check or gf.gcc_product_decision, nor any conditions like portfolio-level analysis or paid multi-scenario ranking.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
C2.9/5.0
Disambiguation3/5
Several tools overlap in purpose, particularly among the GCC analysis services (free_profit_check, gcc_opportunity_score, gcc_product_decision) and the status reporting tools (agent_commerce_status, payment_status, settlement_status, universal_status). While descriptions clarify differences, an agent may struggle to choose between these related services without careful reading.
Naming Consistency4/5
All tools use the 'gf.' prefix and snake_case, providing a consistent base. However, the pattern mixes noun_phrases (agent_budget, payment_status) with verb-based names (execute, quote) and adjective_noun combinations (free_profit_check), making the naming somewhat inconsistent in style though still readable.
Tool Count4/5
At 18 tools, the count is slightly above the typical 15-tool sweet spot but remains reasonable for a comprehensive commerce gateway server that covers discovery, quoting, payment, status, and analytics. The scope justifies the number without feeling bloated.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers the main lifecycle: discovering capabilities, obtaining quotes, executing transactions, checking payment and settlement status, monitoring provider health, and reviewing metrics. Minor gaps exist (no explicit refund/cancel or merchant account creation), but these are not critical to the core workflows.