list_energy_ratesList the electricity, night, public charging, gas, oil and pump prices a1000watts uses for each region.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_energy_rates"
}
}| 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?
Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-open-world operation. The description adds the useful detail that the data includes all six price categories used by a1000watts per region, but does not explain return shape, pagination, or ordering. With annotations covering safety behavior, this is an adequate but not rich disclosure.
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 definition is a single efficient sentence that front-loads the action and then enumerates the data categories. Every clause adds informational value without restating structured fields.
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 parameterless listing tool with read-only annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it states the data categories and regional scope. A slightly richer definition might clarify return grouping or whether all regions are always included, but the gap is minor.
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 zero parameters and 100% coverage, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The description does not need to compensate for missing parameter meanings, and it correctly adds no param-specific noise.
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 uses a clear verb, "List," and names the specific resource categories (electricity, night, public charging, gas, oil, pump prices) plus the regional grouping. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like list_ev_chargers, which overlaps with "public charging."
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 implies the tool retrieves regional energy price data but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or comparison to alternatives. An agent must infer that this is the source for energy-rate lookups rather than a sibling tool.
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.