Card prices for another dose, quantity or place — called by the FineRx card itself.
Same answer as compare_prices, for the package and place picked inside the
card. ``where`` is the place as typed in the card (a ZIP, a city or an
address): used for this one request, never stored. Not for the model.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| zip | No | ||
| form | No | ||
| slug | Yes | ||
| where | No | ||
| locale | No | ||
| quantity | No | ||
| strength | No | ||
| compare_to | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / compare_toAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "title": "Compare To"
+}Input schema / properties / whereAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "title": "Where"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds a genuine privacy trait not covered elsewhere: `where` is 'used for this one request, never stored'. It also states output parity with compare_prices. Return format details are absent but annotations carry the safety profile.
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?
Front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence, then adds usage and a parameter note. Slightly prose-heavy with the parenthetical aside, but every clause contributes information.
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 UI-calling context and privacy behavior of `where` are covered, and no output schema exists so return values needn't be explained. However, with 8 parameters at 0% schema coverage, most arguments are left semantically undefined.
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?
Schema coverage is 0% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only clarifies `where` (ZIP/city/address, not persisted) and loosely hints at dose/quantity/place; zip, form, slug, locale, strength, and compare_to remain undocumented in both schema and description.
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+resource (card prices) and scopes it to 'another dose, quantity or place', explicitly equating it to compare_prices for the in-card package/place. It distinguishes itself from siblings by identifying itself as the card-invoked variant, though 'Card prices' is slightly ambiguous about which card/prices without context.
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?
Explicitly says it is 'called by the FineRx card itself' and 'Not for the model', which is a direct when-not-to-use instruction, and it names compare_prices as the equivalent surface. Routing is unambiguous.
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.