warp-agent-mcp

Compare Freight Costs Against Evidence

compare_freight_costs

Read-only

Calculate USD cost differences for up to 50 distinct shipments using supplied invoice/quote amounts and explicit comparability evidence. Excludes mismatched or unknown terms, keeps losses, separates quoted opportunities from invoice differences. Does not fetch rates, verify documents, annualize savings, or book. One candidate per shipment per call.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "rows": "<rows>"
    },
    "name": "compare_freight_costs"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`rows`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedOct 30, 2026
- removedInput schema / properties / rows / items / properties / candidate_amount_usd / $ref
```
Removed value: -"#/properties/rows/items/properties/baseline_amount_usd"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / rows / items / properties / candidate_amount_usd / maximum
```
Added value: +1000000000
```
- addedInput schema / properties / rows / items / properties / candidate_amount_usd / minimum
```
Added value: +0
```
- addedInput schema / properties / rows / items / properties / candidate_amount_usd / type
```
Added value: +"number"
```
AddedSep 17, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare a safe, closed-world read operation, so the bar is lower; the description still adds genuinely useful behavioral rules — that mismatched/unknown terms are excluded, losses are retained, and quoted opportunities are separated from invoice differences. It stops short of describing the actual response shape.

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?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then scope limits, then behavioral rules, then explicit non-goals. No filler; each clause carries distinct information.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With no output schema, the description must carry the burden of explaining what comes back, and it only partially does so via "separates quoted opportunities from invoice differences" and "keeps losses." For an 11-field-per-row nested input and untyped output, an agent still lacks the return structure needed to consume results.

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?

Top-level schema coverage is 0% for the single `rows` array, though nested fields do carry descriptions. The description adds meaningful constraints (50-row cap, one candidate per shipment per call, evidence-driven comparability) but never explains the required row shape or how the three matched/different/unknown judgments drive inclusion.

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?

States a specific verb ("Calculate USD cost differences") and resource (shipment cost comparisons from supplied invoice/quote amounts), with a precise scope (up to 50 shipments, one candidate per shipment). The explicit exclusions ("Does not fetch rates, verify documents, annualize savings, or book") carve it away from book, price_check, and the quote tools without ambiguity.

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?

Effectively says when to use it: when you already hold invoice/quote amounts plus explicit comparability evidence, and when-not: it does not fetch rates or book. It does not name any sibling tool outright, so the agent must infer that quote-fetching belongs to ltl_quote/ftl_quote/etc.

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

All warp-agent-mcp tools Inspect

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.