get_pricingCuvo's published pricing as markdown: plan tiers with setup fees, the flat $25 per-consult fee, 0% medication markup, commercial terms, and add-ons.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context by specifying the response is markdown and detailing exactly what pricing elements are included. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that names the resource, format, and scope. Every phrase adds information and there is no filler.
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?
For a zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description fully compensation by naming the return format (markdown) and the specific content categories an agent should expect. Nothing essential is missing.
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?
There are zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies because parameter semantics are not needed for this tool.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: getting Cuvo's published pricing. The content list (plan tiers, setup fees, per-consult fee, medication markup, commercial terms, add-ons) distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_availability, get_overview, or get_comparison.
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 makes the tool's purpose clear, but does not explicitly say when to use it over alternatives such as get_overview or get_comparison. Usage must be inferred from the name and the phrase 'published pricing' rather than stated directly.
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 maps to a distinct resource or action: content retrieval (get_article, get_comparison, get_overview, get_pricing), list indices (list_articles, list_comparisons), and scheduling actions (get_availability, book_discovery_call, request_callback). The only near-overlap, book_discovery_call versus request_callback, is clearly separated by their descriptions and required inputs.
All tool names follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern: get_* for singular resources, list_* for collection indices, and book_*/request_* for conversion actions. The naming style is consistent and the verb family matches the tool's role.
Nine tools is a well-scoped size for this server: individual content pages, content lists, and call-booking actions each earn their place. There is no redundancy or sprawl.
The tool surface covers the full website and lead-gen workflow: users can discover content, retrieve full pages, check availability, book a discovery call, or request a callback. The content tools feed directly into their paired retrieval tools, and the scheduling tools cover the expected alternatives.