get_wheel_priceGet current pricing and specs for one wheel by company and model. Prefers an available match; a discontinued wheel is returned (flagged, with last-known prices) when it is the only match.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| model | Yes | Model name (partial match) | |
| company | Yes | Manufacturer name (partial match) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior on its own, and it does: it notes that available matches are preferred and that a discontinued wheel is returned with flags and last-known prices when it is the only match. This goes beyond a generic lookup description. It does not mention no-match behavior or response format, but the disclosed fallback behavior is meaningful.
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 with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second adds a valuable behavioral edge case. Every word contributes to the agent's understanding.
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 two-parameter lookup with full schema coverage, the description covers the primary use case and an important fallback scenario. It does not state what happens when no match exists or describe the response shape, but the absence of an output schema and the low complexity make these gaps minor.
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 100%: both company and model are described as partial matches. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get current pricing and specs for one wheel by company and model.' It explicitly limits the operation to a single wheel, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_wheels and compare_wheels. The purpose is immediately clear and not a restatement of the name.
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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when you need pricing and specs for a specific wheel identified by company and model. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the 'one wheel' scope implies the boundary against search and compare tools.
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 need: approval lookup, side-by-side comparison, single-wheel pricing/specs, and filtered search. There is no meaningful overlap because compare requires multiple wheels, get targets exactly one, and search returns a list.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: check, compare, get, and search. This makes the tool surface predictable and easy to navigate.
Four tools is well-scoped for a read-only wheel reference atlas. Each tool serves a clear, non-redundant purpose and the set is neither bloated nor too thin.
The core workflows of searching, viewing details/pricing, comparing, and checking UCI approval are covered. Minor gaps exist, such as the lack of explicit pagination or a dedicated 'list all' option, but these can be worked around.