List available Disco plans with pricing.
No authentication required. Returns all available subscription tiers with credit allowances and pricing. Use this to help users choose a plan.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses 'No authentication required' and 'Returns all available subscription tiers with credit allowances and pricing,' providing useful behavioral context about output and access. There are no contradictions with annotations.
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 concise sentences, each adding distinct value: purpose, authentication requirement, return details, and usage guidance. There is no fluff 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 list tool with no parameters and an output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does, what data it returns, and when to use it. It is fully self-contained and appropriate for the tool's complexity.
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, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly avoids mentioning parameters, and the schema already covers the empty parameter set. No further parameter explanation is needed.
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 ('List') with a clear resource ('Disco plans') and scope ('with pricing'), and it differentiates from sibling tools like discovery_purchase_credits or discovery_subscribe by focusing on plan listing. The purpose is 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 'Use this to help users choose a plan,' giving a clear use case. It also notes 'No authentication required,' which sets context for when the tool can be invoked. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, so it falls short of a perfect 5.
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 targets a distinct operation (account, payment, analysis, plans, login flows, etc.) with no overlap. Even paired tools like signup/login and their verify counterparts are clearly differentiated.
All tools follow a consistent 'discovery_' prefix + verb_noun pattern (e.g., discovery_add_payment_method, discovery_get_results). No mixed conventions or vague names.
14 tools cover account management, analysis pipeline, and billing without unnecessary redundancy. The scope is well-matched to the server's purpose.
The tool set covers the full user journey from signup and payment to running analyses and retrieving results. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit cancellation of subscriptions), but the core workflow is fully supported.
