get_servicesReturn the current free, $19 consumer, and $59 professional self-serve options. The optional category is enumerated and cannot carry personal information.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | No | Filter: all, free, consumer, or professional | all |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| services | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds that the category parameter is enumerated and cannot carry personal information. This is a useful privacy constraint beyond the schema, but the description does not disclose potential rate limits or data freshness details.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary function, and contains no unnecessary words or redundancy.
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 read-only service with an output schema and full annotations, the description covers the essential behavior and parameter constraint. No significant gaps are evident.
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 already fully documents the category parameter with enum and default. The description adds meaning by linking categories to specific prices ($19 consumer, $59 professional), helping agents understand the significance of each enum value.
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 the current service tiers and prices, specifically listing free, $19 consumer, and $59 professional options. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_info or get_location.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states what it returns without contrasting it with other tools or specifying use 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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes: get_info, get_location, get_services, lookup_deadline, lookup_exit_route, choose_workflow, and template retrieval are all separate concerns. However, get_info and get_services both touch on pricing/options, which could cause slight confusion.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (get_*, lookup_*, choose_*). The verbs are semantically appropriate, and the style is uniform throughout, making the set predictable.
With 7 tools, the set is well-scoped for a niche informational server focused on referral exit routes and deadlines. Each tool covers a distinct aspect, and the count does not feel excessive or sparse.
The toolset covers key information retrieval (business info, services, location), lookup of deadlines and exit routes, and workflow selection. A minor gap is the lack of a tool to list all supported networks, which would improve discoverability, but agents can work around this.