tradebasis_pricing_and_tiersTradeBasis subscription tiers — Lite ($99/mo CAD) vs Pro ($499/mo CAD): what each includes and who each is for. Static markdown.
| 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 carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns 'static markdown', indicating a read-only, fixed-content resource with no side effects or dynamic behavior. While it doesn't discuss authentication or caching, the static nature is a meaningful behavioral trait for a zero-risk tool.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the main subject (TradeBasis subscription tiers) and compactly conveys the content details (what each includes, who each is for) and the format (static markdown). No wasted words.
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 the low complexity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete: it states the subject, the scope (Lite vs Pro), the content nature (includes and audience), and the format. No additional behavior or return value details are necessary.
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, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description does not need to explain parameter semantics; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, which is appropriate here.
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 clearly identifies the tool as providing TradeBasis subscription tier information (Lite vs Pro), including what each includes and who each is for, and explicitly notes it is static markdown. This fully distinguishes it from sibling tools tradebasis_about and tradebasis_research_library.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the siblings (tradbasis_about, tradebasis_research_library). The purpose is implied (pricing/questions), but no alternative boundaries or exclusion criteria are provided.
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 has a clearly distinct purpose: one provides general info about TradeBasis, one details subscription tiers, and one retrieves research briefs. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent pattern: the prefix 'tradbasis_' followed by a descriptive noun phrase (about, pricing_and_tiers, research_library). No mixing of conventions.
With 3 tools, the server is slightly minimal but still reasonable for an informational surface. Each tool has a clear role, and the count feels appropriate for the scope of providing static content.
The tool set covers the core informational needs (about, pricing, research) for the TradeBasis service. Some minor gaps exist (e.g., no FAQ or contact tool), but it is largely complete for its stated purpose.