pricing_infoFree — list every paid tool in the 'company-intel' bundle with its price, payTo address and network. Call this first if you don't have a wallet ready yet.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description complements this by adding 'Free' and noting the tool returns price, payTo address, and network. It also implies that no wallet is required, which is useful behavioral guidance beyond the 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 exactly two sentences, with the primary function front-loaded ('Free — list every paid tool...'). The second sentence offers actionable usage advice. Every word serves a purpose, making it highly concise.
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 parameterless, read-only pricing tool, the description is complete: it states the scope ('company-intel' bundle), the exact output fields (price, payTo address, network), and the recommended invocation order. No output schema is needed because the description explicitly lists what the tool returns.
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 schema coverage is trivially 100%. With no parameters to document, the description appropriately focuses on output fields (price, payTo address, network) rather than inputs, warranting the baseline 4 for zero-parameter tools.
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') and identifies the exact resource ('every paid tool in the 'company-intel' bundle'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling intelligence tools by focusing on pricing and payment details rather than data signals.
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 instructs 'Call this first if you don't have a wallet ready yet,' providing clear context for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but among the sibling tools, this is the only pricing-related tool, so the guidance is sufficient.
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.
Several tools overlap in signal space: hiring-radar, hiring-trend-index, layoff-tracker, and intent-signal-aggregator all touch hiring; funding-alert vs funding-round-tracker, sanctions-screening vs sanctions-update-alert, and rollup tools vs individual checks create boundary ambiguity. However, each has a distinct output format, so descriptions help.
Tool names are consistently lowercase with hyphens and descriptive noun phrases (e.g., company-hiring-radar, litigation-check), but pricing_info breaks the pattern with snake_case and a non-descriptive name.
With 20 tools, the server feels heavy and covers a wide range of premium data services, but each tool does target a distinct data source or workflow, so it's borderline rather than excessive.
The surface covers company identity, hiring, litigation, sanctions, funding, and patents well, but lacks direct financials, ownership structure, and general news monitoring beyond funding/layoffs, leaving some sales-intelligence gaps.