pricing_infoFree — list every paid tool in the 'decision-intelligence' 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, and the description aligns with this by noting the operation is 'Free' and involves listing. It adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: the tool returns price, payTo address, and network, and is intended as a first step before wallet preparation. No contradiction exists.
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 fluff. It front-loads 'Free' and the core action, then adds the key usage context. Every word earns its place.
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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, and when to call it. It is complete for its simplicity.
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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not need to explain parameter semantics, and there are no parameters to compensate for.
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 the specific verb 'list' and clearly identifies the resource: 'every paid tool in the 'decision-intelligence' bundle'. It also specifies the exact details returned (price, payTo address, network), making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from its unrelated siblings.
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 phrase 'Call this first if you don't have a wallet ready yet' explicitly states when to use the tool, providing clear contextual guidance. However, it does not mention alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 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 evidence domain (app reviews, ads, retail) and produces unique outputs. The only overlap is the general 'unsent actions' concept, but inputs and analysis types are clearly different.
Tool names are inconsistent: three use multi-word hyphenated phrases, while 'pricing_info' uses snake_case. There is no uniform verb-noun pattern or consistent stylistic choice.
Four tools is a reasonable count for a specialized server, though one tool is purely informational. The three functional tools cover distinct areas without feeling sparse or bloated.
Each analysis tool appears to cover its respective end-to-end workflow (evidence in -> findings/actions out). Minor gaps exist in broader decision-support capabilities, but for the declared bundle scope, the surface is fairly complete.