pricing_infoFree — list every paid tool in the 'compliance-tools' 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 mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds that it is 'Free' and that it should be called first when no wallet is ready, providing extra behavioral context 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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the essential 'Free' label and a clear statement of function, followed by a concise usage hint. No filler 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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers the purpose, the returned information (price, payTo address, network), and the recommended usage context, making it complete for the agent.
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 0 parameters, so the schema is fully covered and there is nothing to explain. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on output contents instead.
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?
Specific verb 'list', resource 'paid tools in the compliance-tools bundle', and details (price, payTo address, network) clearly define what the tool does and distinguish it from the sibling scanner tools.
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?
Explicitly says 'Call this first if you don't have a wallet ready yet,' giving a clear when-to-use context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or compare directly to alternative 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.
The two scanners target distinct compliance areas (accessibility/privacy vs AI transparency), with no overlap in purpose. pricing_info is clearly separate, serving as an informational helper. Each tool has a unique role.
The two scanners follow a consistent 'eu-<domain>-lead-scanner' pattern, but pricing_info breaks the pattern and uses an underscore instead of hyphens. The mix of hyphenated and snake_case naming makes the set slightly inconsistent.
With only 3 tools, the set is tightly scoped to EU compliance scanning. Each tool earns its place: two functional scanners and one pricing helper. This is well within the ideal 3-15 range.
The two scanners cover two specific EU compliance areas, and pricing_info supports the workflow. There is a minor gap in that no tool exists to manage or retrieve past scan results, but the core scanning functionality is complete for the stated purpose.