Today in one call: the top 5 models, which ones climbed, whose pricing changed in the last 24h, and what was newly listed in the last 7 days. Use this instead of paging list_model_changes and re-deriving the summary: price changes are already collapsed to one per model, with the raw count kept.
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that price changes are collapsed to one per model with the raw count kept, and states the relevant time windows. However, it leaves 'top 5' undefined and does not state the output shape or whether this is a read-only operation, so disclosure is partial.
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?
Two dense sentences carry the full value: the first enumerates the returned summary components, the second gives usage direction. There is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.
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?
The description covers the tool's contents, time windows, aggregation behavior, and preferred usage over the sibling. It is slightly incomplete because 'top 5 models' lacks a defined ranking criterion and there is no output schema to clarify the return shape, but the tool is low-complexity and no-parameter, so this is close to sufficient.
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 an empty input schema, so there is no param documentation burden for the description. The baseline of 4 for no-parameter tools applies.
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 exactly what the tool returns: top 5 models, climbers, 24h price changes, and 7-day new listings. It also explicitly contrasts itself with list_model_changes, so an agent can distinguish it from the closest sibling without opening schemas.
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?
It gives an explicit when-to-use instruction: 'Use this instead of paging list_model_changes and re-deriving the summary.' This names the alternative and the condition that selects this tool, which is strong routing guidance.
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.