Resolve a FLOPS index to its source-opaque PUBLIC citation payload. Returns exactly {index_id, value, unit, as_of, data_tier, confidence, methodology_url, verify_url, citation_url, permalink} — no source-level detail. Prefer get_index when you intend to CITE the value.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| index_id | Yes | FLOPS index id / slug, e.g. 'FLOPS-H100-OD', 'FLOPS-A100-SPOT'. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the payload is 'source-opaque' and 'PUBLIC', and explicitly lists the exact return fields and states 'no source-level detail.' This provides meaningful behavioral transparency beyond just the operation name, though it does not mention failure modes or authorization requirements.
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 three sentences: purpose, return format, and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value, is front-loaded with the primary action, and there is no redundancy or 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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It specifies the exact return payload fields, conveys the important limitation (source-opaque), and gives guidance on when to prefer it over siblings. No significant gaps remain.
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 100% and the parameter 'index_id' is well-described in the schema with examples. The description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 specific verb 'Resolve' with a clear resource ('FLOPS index') and output ('citation payload'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by stating 'Prefer get_index when you intend to CITE the value.' This makes the tool's role unambiguous.
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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('Prefer get_index when you intend to CITE the value'), providing clear context. It does not explicitly list when-not-to-use or alternative tools, but the context is sufficient for most cases.
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 has a distinct primary purpose: discovery (list/search), pricing (get_price), citation (get_index), and verification (verify). There is slight overlap between get_price and verify in 'current value' lookup mode, but descriptions clarify intended use cases.
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (get_index, get_price, list_indices, search_indices). The tool 'verify' deviates by using a bare verb without a noun, breaking the pattern slightly.
Five tools is well-scoped for a data lookup and verification server. Each tool covers a distinct need without bloat, and the count is within the ideal range for a focused service.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle for interacting with FLOPS indices: discover (list/search), retrieve current price (get_price), retrieve citation metadata (get_index), and validate values (verify). No obvious gaps for the stated purpose, as advanced features like source-level detail are intentionally excluded.