Return the full paid-offer catalog: every tier with price, currency, interval, checkout URL, what it unlocks, deliverables, and license grant — plus the free layer and premium slug list. Same data as /api/pricing.json.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the return data and references an API endpoint, indicating a read-only operation. However, it lacks details on authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the data is cached.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no wasted words. Front-loads the core purpose and includes a reference for verification. Highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no input schema and no output schema, the description fully covers the tool's purpose and return value. It provides enough detail for an agent to decide when to use it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it correctly omits any parameter discussion.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it returns the full paid-offer catalog with specific fields (tier, price, currency, interval, checkout URL, etc.) and mentions the free layer and premium slug list. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying its unique data scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool: to get the complete pricing catalog. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternative tools. Given no input parameters, the usage context is straightforward, but a mention of alternatives like get_payment_info could improve it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct action: checking access, fetching corpus (free vs full), pricing, payment, listing, searching, stats, and single resource retrieval. No significant overlap.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., check_access, get_corpus, list_resources). Verbs are uniform and descriptive.
With 10 tools, the set is well-scoped for a resource access and management API. Each tool serves a clear purpose without redundancy or excessive number.
The toolset covers core operations: access verification, corpus retrieval (free and premium), pricing, payment info, resource listing, search, and stats. Missing write operations (e.g., purchase), but acceptable for a read-focused server.