Skip to main content
Glama

HelpMyAgent

by io.github.helpmyagent
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Compare French companies

company_fr_compare

Compares 2 to 5 French companies across public administrative, financial and legal-risk fields without producing a global winner. Use when: Compares 2 to 5 French companies across public administrative, financial and legal-risk fields without producing a global winner. You already know 2 to 5 French company identifiers and want a side-by-side public-data comparison. You need comparable administrative, financial and legal-risk fields without declaring a global winner. Avoid when: You need an automatically selected peer set and relative metrics; use company/fr/benchmark. You need details for only one company; use the relevant single-company endpoint. Limitations: Comparability depends on which public fields are available for every supplied company. Missing public financial data can make some cross-company comparisons incomplete. Price: 0.030 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
identifiersYesList of French company identifiers to process; each item must be a 9-digit SIREN or 14-digit SIRET. (at least 2 items; at most 5 items).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rankingsYesStructured value returned for “rankings” as defined by this API contract.
companiesYesStructured company records returned by the endpoint.
limitationsNoKnown interpretation, source-coverage or freshness limitations for this result.
comparabilityYesStructured value returned for “comparability” as defined by this API contract.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "companies",
-  "comparability",
-  "rankings",
-  "limitations"
-]New value: +[
+  "companies",
+  "comparability",
+  "rankings"
+]
  2. Changed7 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / description
      Added value: +"Structured input parameters for the company/fr/compare API."
    • addedInput schema / properties / identifiers / description
      Added value: +"List of French company identifiers to process; each item must be a 9-digit SIREN or 14-digit SIRET. (at least 2 items; at most 5 items)."
    • addedOutput schema / description
      Added value: +"Structured result returned by the company/fr/compare API."
    • addedOutput schema / properties / companies / description
      Added value: +"Structured company records returned by the endpoint."
    • addedOutput schema / properties / comparability / description
      Added value: +"Structured value returned for “comparability” as defined by this API contract."
    • addedOutput schema / properties / limitations / description
      Added value: +"Known interpretation, source-coverage or freshness limitations for this result."
    • addedOutput schema / properties / rankings / description
      Added value: +"Structured value returned for “rankings” as defined by this API contract."
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses that source records are not modified but the paid x402 invocation can consume payment, that the challenge is free, and that repetition may require a new payment. It also lists accepted networks and limitations, giving richer behavioral context than the annotations alone.

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?

The content is front-loaded and organized into useful sections, but the opening statement is repeated nearly verbatim in the 'Use when' section. The redundancy is minor and the overall length is justified by pricing and payment details.

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?

The description covers when to use, when not to use, alternatives, limitations, pricing, paid-call behavior, and accepted networks. An output schema exists, so return-value details are not required, and nothing needed to invoke the tool correctly 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 coverage is 100% and already documents the identifier pattern (SIREN/SIRET), minItems, and maxItems. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: compares 2 to 5 French companies across administrative, financial, and legal-risk fields, and explicitly states it does not produce a global winner. This distinguishes it from single-company and benchmarking siblings, so an agent can tell it apart without inspecting schemas.

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?

It provides explicit 'Use when' and 'Avoid when' guidance, naming company/fr/benchmark for automatic peer sets and single-company endpoints for one-company lookups. Limitations on comparability add further decision-relevant context.

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