What do the paid endpoints return, and what do they cost? Free: prices and paths of every paid endpoint, plus a full example response for GET /v1/provider taken verbatim from a real record, labelled as an example with its last-verified date. Use it to see the shape and depth of paid data before paying.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioural burden and does so well: it discloses the call is free, that the content is an example taken verbatim from a real record, that it is labelled as such, and that it carries a last-verified date. This is exactly the kind of provenance information an agent needs to avoid treating sample data as live. It stops short of explaining freshness guarantees or pagination.
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?
Every sentence carries information, but the second sentence opens with a dangling "Free:" fragment that reads awkwardly, and the opening question format delays the actual resource description. It is reasonably front-loaded but not cleanly structured.
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?
With no output schema, no annotations, and no parameters, the description must stand alone — and it describes the return payload (prices, paths, one full sample response with provenance labelling) well enough for correct invocation. Minor gaps around response freshness beyond the single verified date remain.
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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to add; the baseline for a no-param tool is 4. The description correctly implies the call is parameterless by addressing it as a fixed catalogue lookup.
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 concrete resource — the catalogue of paid endpoints with their prices and paths — plus one full example response for GET /v1/provider. That is specific enough to distinguish it from siblings like get_provider, which returns live provider data. It is framed as a question rather than a verb+resource statement, which costs it a point.
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?
"Use it to see the shape and depth of paid data before paying" gives a clear when-to-use trigger: previewing paid data before committing to spend. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, so the contrast with get_provider must be inferred.
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.