Skip to main content
Glama

SNHP — free negotiation math + agent memory

by io.github.ryuxik

Optimal auction bid

auction_bid
Read-only

The optimal bid when you're bidding in an auction — free, no account or key needed.

USE THIS WHEN: you're a bidder and want the bid that maximizes your expected surplus without overpaying. NOT for running an auction (use auction_reserve) or 1:1 haggling (use negotiate).

Provide: auction_format ("first_price" sealed bid, "second_price_vickrey", or "english_ascending"); my_valuation (what the item is worth to YOU, in $); n_competing_bidders (how many OTHER bidders, not counting you); and competitor_value_prior — a rough model of what rivals will pay, e.g. {"family":"uniform","params":{"low":0,"high":6000}} (or {"family":"lognorm","params":{"mu":8.5,"sigma":0.4}}). Estimate it if unknown. Returns {optimal_bid, expected_surplus, win_probability, dominant_strategy, rationale} — bid and surplus in the SAME $ you passed in.

Example: a domain worth $5,000 to you, 4 rivals who'd pay up to ~$6,000, in a sealed first-price auction -> auction_bid(auction_format="first_price", my_valuation=5000, n_competing_bidders=4, competitor_value_prior={"family":"uniform","params":{"low":0,"high":6000}}) -> optimal_bid ~$4,000, win_probability ~0.48.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
my_valuationYesWhat the item is worth to YOU, in dollars.
reserve_priceNoThe auction's reserve/minimum bid in dollars, if any (optional).
risk_aversionNoYour risk aversion; 1.0 = risk-neutral (default 1.0).
auction_formatYes'first_price' (sealed), 'second_price_vickrey', or 'english_ascending'.
n_competing_biddersYesHow many OTHER bidders there are (not counting you).
competitor_value_priorYesRough model of what rivals will pay, e.g. {family:'uniform', params:{low:0, high:6000}} or {family:'lognorm', params:{mu:8.5, sigma:0.4}}.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
errorNo
rationaleNo
optimal_bidNo
win_probabilityNo
expected_surplusNo
dominant_strategyNo

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds further transparency: 'free, no account or key needed' (no authentication), and clarifies that inputs like competitor_value_prior are approximations. No contradictions.

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 well-structured with a clear summary, usage guidance, parameter explanation, return fields, and an example. Every sentence serves a purpose; no unnecessary text.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 params, nested objects, output schema), the description covers purpose, usage, parameters, output, and provides an example. It is sufficiently complete for effective use.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond schema by explaining the competitor_value_prior with examples and emphasizing that values are in same currency. However, it omits the optional parameters risk_aversion and reserve_price, which are present in 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 computes the optimal bid for a bidder in an auction. It uses a specific verb ('optimal bid'), specifies the resource, and distinguishes from siblings (auction_reserve for running auctions, negotiate for haggling).

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('when you're a bidder wanting to maximize surplus') and when not to use ('NOT for running an auction' or '1:1 haggling'), with direct references to alternative tools (auction_reserve, negotiate).

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

All SNHP — free negotiation math + agent memory 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes (e.g., auctions, negotiation, pricing, matching, memory). However, negotiate/session_advise and negotiate_bundle/session_bundle overlap in functionality, differing only in payment tier, which could cause confusion.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names generally follow a verb_noun pattern in snake_case. 'negotiate' is a lone verb without a noun, but overall the convention is consistent and predictable.

Tool Count4/5

15 tools cover a broad domain of negotiation, auctions, pricing, matching, and memory. While slightly on the higher side, each tool serves a clear purpose and the count is reasonable for the scope.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers key negotiation scenarios (single/multi-issue, free/paid, auctions, clearance pricing, stable matching) and adds memory persistence. Minor gap: no explicit tool for managing user preferences or profiles.

Resources