quoteGet a deterministic price quote before authorization or execution. This does not reserve credits or run provider work.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| payload | No | ||
| agent_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | No | ||
| data | No | ||
| error | No | ||
| intent | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| receipt | No | ||
| success | No | ||
| request_id | No | ||
| next_action | No | ||
| operation_id | No | ||
| requires_human | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Even with readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it explicitly states there are no side effects such as reserving credits or running provider work. This reinforces that the tool is safe to call before committing to anything.
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 short sentences front-load the purpose and the most important behavioral constraints. There is no filler, redundancy, or vague language.
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?
The description covers the tool's purpose and side-effect behavior, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. However, the input contract is essentially undocumented: payload is a bare object with additionalProperties true, and the description offers no clues about required fields or how agent_id is used.
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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description provides no guidance about what payload or agent_id should contain. An agent cannot infer how to construct a valid request from either the schema or the prose.
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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Get a deterministic price quote.' It also positions the tool as a pre-authorization/pre-execution step, which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools authorize and execute.
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 gives clear timing context: use this before authorization or execution. It also gives an important exclusion by saying the tool 'does not reserve credits or run provider work.' It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the usage window is clear enough.
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 phase or concern: discovery, quoting, authorization, execution, connection management, and receipt verification. There is no meaningful overlap between tool responsibilities.
Most tool names are single imperative verbs (authorize, connect, discover, execute, quote), which is consistent and predictable. verify_receipt breaks the pattern slightly by using verb_noun, but the intent remains clear.
Six tools is a well-scoped set for a workflow-oriented infrastructure API. Each tool maps to a clear stage in the operation lifecycle without redundancy.
The core lifecycle is well covered: discover, quote, authorize, execute, and verify_receipt. Minor gaps exist around canceling authorizations or revoking connections, but these are not critical to the primary execution workflow.