list_pricing_plansReturns Qualityiris pricing: $69/inspector/month or $690/year, plus a 14-day free trial. Admin, Manager, Buyer, Factory seats are free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the exact return content (pricing, trial, free seats), which implies a read-only operation. It doesn't mention side effects or caveats, but for a simple lookup tool this is sufficient.
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 sentence that front-loads the main purpose and provides concrete details without any fluff. Every word earns its place.
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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides complete context: it tells exactly what will be returned (specific pricing, trial period, free seats). No additional information is needed for an agent to use this tool correctly.
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 adds context about what the returned pricing includes, which is useful even though there are no parameters to document.
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 states the tool returns pricing information for Qualityiris, specifying exact prices and free tiers. This is distinct from sibling tools like about_qualityiris, get_faq, and list_features, which cover company info, FAQs, and features respectively.
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 it obvious this is for pricing-related queries, providing clear context. It doesn't explicitly state exclusions or mention alternative tools, but the pricing details make usage scenarios clear. Lack of explicit alternatives is a minor gap.
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 serves a clearly distinct purpose: product overview, FAQ, feature list, and pricing. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
Three tools follow the verb_noun pattern (get_faq, list_features, list_pricing_plans), but about_qualityiris does not, mixing a preposition-based name with verb-based names. The pattern is mostly consistent but with a noticeable deviation.
Four tools is well-scoped for an informational product server. Each tool covers a distinct aspect of the product and none are redundant or excessive.
The tool surface covers the core information needs about the product: overview, FAQ, features, and pricing. Minor gaps like contact info or detailed documentation are possible but not critical for the apparent purpose.