Calculate the final price (USD) for a plan + location + billing period, including discounts and any RAM / disk / extra-IP upgrades.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| plan | Yes | plan name (e.g. "IS-S", "PA-M", "DS-1-CH", "NL-L" for GPU H100) | |
| type | Yes | ||
| billing | Yes | months billed — 3/6/12 trigger 25/35/50% discounts. | |
| location | Yes | ||
| extra_ips | No | ||
| ram_upgrade | No |
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 the full burden of disclosing side effects. It says 'Calculate' which suggests a read-only operation, but it never states that it does not modify state, require authentication, or have rate limits. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant omission.
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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the action 'Calculate the final price', and includes all key scope elements without waste. It is concise and structured for quick parsing.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description should clarify return format, but it only says 'Calculate the final price'. It also references 'disk' upgrades not present in the schema, and does not explain required vs. optional parameters or whether the call is synchronous. For a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, this is incomplete.
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 description coverage is only 33%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'RAM / disk / extra-IP upgrades' but there is no disk parameter in the schema. It also does not explain 'type' or 'location' beyond the schema's enum. The discount context is already in the billing parameter's schema description, so the tool description adds little semantic 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 uses a specific verb 'Calculate' and a clear resource 'final price' with scope (plan + location + billing period). It also mentions upgrades and discounts, distinguishing it from siblings like create_order (which likely creates an order) and list_plans (which lists plans).
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 clearly implies a pricing/quote purpose, but it does not explicitly state when to use this vs. create_order or list_plans. There is no mention of 'use this to estimate cost before ordering' or 'this does not create an order', leaving usage guidance implicit.
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.