Skip to main content
Glama

Funcheap

by io.github.pipeworx-io

AI Visibility Check

ai_visibility_check
Read-onlyIdempotent

Probe one or more LLMs for what they know about a business / brand / product / topic and score visibility (0-100) per model. Default model is Workers AI Llama-3.3-70b (free); pass _apiKey to also probe Anthropic (BYO key — you pay Anthropic directly for those calls). Returns per-model {score, confidence, signals, raw_response} + a combined view. Useful for AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
entityYesThe thing to ask about. Brand/business name, product name, person, or topic. E.g. "Pipeworx", "OpenInvoice", "Acme Corp pricing".
modelsNoWhich models to probe. Supported: "workers-ai" (free default), "anthropic" (requires _apiKey). Omit for just workers-ai.
_apiKeyNoOptional Anthropic API key (sk-ant-...) — only needed if "anthropic" is in models. Passed straight through to api.anthropic.com.
contextNoOptional: a phrase locating the entity (e.g. "Boston restaurant", "B2B SaaS"). Helps disambiguate common names.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds value by explaining the default model (Workers AI Llama-3.3-70b free) and the BYO key requirement for Anthropic calls, which is beyond the annotations.

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 description is a single efficient paragraph that front-loads the main purpose. It is clear but could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating output format). No unnecessary words.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains the return format (per-model and combined view) and includes use cases. It covers all necessary aspects for agent decision-making, though a more detailed output example would improve completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with all parameters described. The description enriches by specifying the exact default model (Llama-3.3-70b) and providing usage hints for the 'context' parameter (e.g., 'Boston restaurant'). This adds meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool probes LLMs for knowledge about a business/brand/product/topic and returns a visibility score (0-100). It specifies the default model and optional Anthropic probing, making the action and scope unambiguous.

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?

The description explicitly lists use cases such as AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, and competitive monitoring, providing clear context for when to use. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives among sibling tools.

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

All Funcheap toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools are distinct (event search, subscriptions, memory, Polymarket arbitrage, data lookups), but ai_visibility_check, scan_competitor_ai_presence, bet_research, polymarket_edges, and polymarket_arbitrage have overlapping purposes around competitive research and prediction-market edge-finding. The detailed descriptions disambiguate them, though an agent could confuse polymarket_edges with polymarket_arbitrage.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names are mostly descriptive and consistent: search_events, event, categories, tags are aligned; ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, entity_profile follow a similar pattern. However, polymarket_* tools have an odd mix of `polymarket_arbitrage`, `polymarket_fill_risk`, and `polymarket_edge_tracker`, and discover_tools/recent_alerts/recent_changes are consistent, mostly. Naming is quite consistent overall with minor deviations.

Tool Count3/5

At 35 tools, the count is heavier than typical MCP servers, but it reflects a broad service (Funcheap data + Pipeworx data platform + pred markets). Still, plenty of tools serve the same primary purpose (polymarket_, ask_pipeworx variants) so some pruning would improve the surface.

Completeness4/5

The surface appears complete for its domain: search/retrieve events, category/tag navigation, memory, subscriptions (create/list/cancel/pull), data lookups, entity resolution, comparisons, profiles, edge scanning, and feedback. Minor gaps include no direct 'update' on events (but events are static), and no pricing fetch tool separate from event text, though body text covers it.

Resources