Skip to main content
Glama

HelpMyAgent

by io.github.helpmyagent
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Benchmark a French company against public peers

company_fr_benchmark

Benchmarks a company against public peers using available revenue, net income, growth and margin metrics. Use when: Benchmarks a company against public peers using available revenue, net income, growth and margin metrics. You need to benchmark one French company against automatically selected public peers. You want available revenue, net-income, growth and margin comparisons with peer context. Avoid when: You already have a fixed set of 2 to 5 companies to compare; use company/fr/compare. You only need the comparable-company list without metrics; use company/fr/peers. Limitations: Benchmark quality depends on public financial data being available for the target and selected peers. The peer sample is an administrative/public-data comparison set, not an official industry benchmark. Price: 0.040 USD per call via x402. Paid-call behavior: source records are not modified, but a successful invocation can consume the advertised x402 payment; the payment-required challenge is free, and repeating the tool after a completed paid invocation may require a new payment. Accepted x402 networks: eip155:8453, xrpl:0.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scopeNoGeographic comparison scope controlling whether candidates are selected by department, region or all of France. (default region; allowed values: department, region, france).region
identifierYesFrench company identifier: 9-digit SIREN or 14-digit SIRET.
peer_limitNoMaximum number of comparable peer companies used by the benchmark. (minimum 2; maximum 10; default 5).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesPublicly available company, person, buyer or record name for this result.
peersYesStructured value returned for “peers” as defined by this API contract.
scopeYesStructured value returned for “scope” as defined by this API contract.
sirenYesNormalized 9-digit French SIREN when available.
existsYesWhether the requested company or public record was found in the checked source.
metricsYesStructured value returned for “metrics” as defined by this API contract.
identifierYesIdentifier supplied for the request, echoed in normalized form when applicable.
peer_countYesStructured value returned for “peer count” as defined by this API contract.
limitationsNoKnown interpretation, source-coverage or freshness limitations for this result.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "identifier",
-  "exists",
-  "siren",
-  "name",
-  "scope",
-  "peer_count",
-  "metrics",
-  "peers",
-  "limitations"
-]New value: +[
+  "identifier",
+  "exists",
+  "siren",
+  "name",
+  "scope",
+  "peer_count",
+  "metrics",
+  "peers"
+]
  2. Changed14 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / description
      Added value: +"Structured input parameters for the company/fr/benchmark API."
    • addedInput schema / properties / identifier / description
      Added value: +"French company identifier: 9-digit SIREN or 14-digit SIRET."
    • addedInput schema / properties / peer_limit / description
      Added value: +"Maximum number of comparable peer companies used by the benchmark. (minimum 2; maximum 10; default 5)."
    • addedInput schema / properties / scope / description
      Added value: +"Geographic comparison scope controlling whether candidates are selected by department, region or all of France. (default region; allowed values: department, region, france)."
    • addedOutput schema / description
      Added value: +"Structured result returned by the company/fr/benchmark API."
    • addedOutput schema / properties / exists / description
      Added value: +"Whether the requested company or public record was found in the checked source."
    • addedOutput schema / properties / identifier / description
      Added value: +"Identifier supplied for the request, echoed in normalized form when applicable."
    • addedOutput schema / properties / limitations / description
      Added value: +"Known interpretation, source-coverage or freshness limitations for this result."
    • addedOutput schema / properties / metrics / description
      Added value: +"Structured value returned for “metrics” as defined by this API contract."
    • changedOutput schema / properties / name
      Previous value: -[]New value: +{
+  "description": "Publicly available company, person, buyer or record name for this result."
+}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / peer_count / description
      Added value: +"Structured value returned for “peer count” as defined by this API contract."
    • addedOutput schema / properties / peers / description
      Added value: +"Structured value returned for “peers” as defined by this API contract."
    • addedOutput schema / properties / scope / description
      Added value: +"Structured value returned for “scope” as defined by this API contract."
    • changedOutput schema / properties / siren
      Previous value: -[]New value: +{
+  "description": "Normalized 9-digit French SIREN when available."
+}
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations are all false, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly covers paid-call behavior, x402 payment consumption, free challenge behavior, repeat-call payment implications, accepted networks, source-record non-modification, and data-quality limitations. This is far beyond what annotations or schema provide.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with clear labels, but it repeats the opening sentence almost verbatim in the Use-when section ('Benchmarks a company against public peers using available revenue, net income, growth and margin metrics'). Some trimming would make it tighter without losing key information.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a paid, network-restricted benchmark tool, the description covers purpose, selection criteria, input context, exclusions, pricing, payment behavior, network constraints, and data limitations. An output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return values. Nothing essential is missing.

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 clear descriptions for identifier, scope, and peer_limit, including defaults, ranges, and allowed enum values. The tool description itself adds no deeper parameter meaning, but the schema already carries the full load, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Benchmarks a company against public peers using available revenue, net income, growth and margin metrics.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from the nearby compare and peers tools by naming them as alternatives in the Avoid-when section.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Usage guidance is explicit and actionable: Use-when conditions, Avoid-when conditions with named sibling tools (company/fr/compare and company/fr/peers), plus limitations. An agent can decide between this and related tools without guessing.

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

All HelpMyAgent 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