JMT x402 MCP Server

competitor_analysis

Input your company name to receive an LLM-generated competitor comparison matrix, revealing key insights for strategic positioning.

Instructions

Competitor analysis — comparison matrix with LLM. Price: $0.08/call via x402 (USDC on Base mainnet).

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": {
      "company": "<company>"
    },
    "name": "competitor_analysis"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`company`	Yes	Company name

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions pricing and LLM usage but does not specify whether the tool is read-only, whether it has side effects, or what data sources it accesses. This lacks sufficient behavioral context for an agent.

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 short with two sentences, efficiently conveying purpose and pricing. The pricing detail is somewhat extraneous but does not significantly detract from conciseness.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The description lacks information about return value format, example usage, or how the comparison matrix is structured. Given no output schema, the description leaves the agent with incomplete understanding of what the tool produces.

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?

The schema already describes the 'company' parameter as 'Company name' with 100% coverage. The description does not add extra meaning such as expected format or examples, so it provides minimal enhancement beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states it performs competitor analysis and produces a comparison matrix using an LLM, which is a specific verb and resource. It gives a clear idea of the tool's output, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'company_intel' or 'analyze'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or context for invocation. The description omits any when-to-use or when-not-to-use information.

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