Skip to main content
Glama

Rank eval results

modelfinder_rank_eval_results
Read-onlyIdempotent

Rank models from a finished eval run by cost per passing call and recommend a cost-effective model that meets the pass threshold. Returns the ranked cascade and dominated models dropped.

Instructions

Rank the models in a finished eval run (the results.json object written by eval_models.py) and recommend the cheapest one that met the pass threshold, ranked by cost per passing call. Use after an eval run; to test a single reply use modelfinder_check_output, and to turn the ranking into a fallback chain use modelfinder_generate_routing. Read-only and local: no network calls, no files written. Returns the recommendation, the ranked list, the cost/reliability cascade and models dropped as dominated (a model is dropped when it costs at least as much per passing call as a model earlier in the cascade and is not more reliable; ties on cost or reliability count as dominated).

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultsYesThe full results.json object written by eval_models.py.
response_formatNomarkdown (default) for a readable summary, json for the full machine-readable result.markdown

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rankedYes
cascadeYes
dominatedYes
recommendationYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.3.5

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, and the description partly restates that ('no network calls, no files written'). It earns credit for behavior the annotations cannot express: the exact outputs returned (recommendation, ranked list, cost/reliability cascade, dropped models) and a precise definition of the domination rule, which an agent cannot infer from any structured field.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by routing guidance and then output semantics; every sentence carries distinct information. The parenthetical defining domination is long but it replaces ambiguity with an exact rule, so the density is justified rather than padded.

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?

Covers inputs, the decision logic being applied, the returned artifacts, side-effect profile and sibling routing. With an output schema present, the description need not detail return shapes, yet it still names the key components, so an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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% and both parameters are documented there, including the enum for response_format. The description adds only the provenance of the results object ('written by eval_models.py'), which the schema already states, so this sits at the baseline.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Rank the models in a finished eval run' and identifies the exact input artifact (results.json from eval_models.py). It also names two sibling tools and the distinct job each does, so an agent can separate this from modelfinder_check_output and modelfinder_generate_routing without opening a schema.

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?

Gives explicit timing ('Use after an eval run') plus two named alternatives with the condition that selects each: single reply -> check_output, fallback chain -> generate_routing. This is the when/when-not/alternatives pattern at full strength.

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