pricing_infoFree — list every paid tool in the 'location-demand-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 indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the 'Free' cost and explicitly enumerates returned fields (price, payTo, network), providing useful output 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 concise sentences: the first states what the tool does and its output fields, the second gives the usage instruction. No redundancy or unnecessary detail.
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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers invocation context, result contents, and when to call it. It is self-sufficient and leaves no critical gaps.
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 and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description focuses on purpose and output, which is appropriate given no parameters need explanation.
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 clearly states it lists every paid tool in the 'location-demand-intelligence' bundle with price, payTo address, and network. The verb 'list' and specific resource distinguish it from sibling scoring 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 instructs to call this first if no wallet is ready, giving a clear condition and priority. This effectively communicates when the tool should be used as a prerequisite for paid tool interactions.
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.
Most tools target distinct resources, but the two MOIS demographic scorers (neighborhood-age and solo-household) overlap in purpose and could be confused; both score demand based on age cohorts, and the distinction is subtle.
Most tools follow a hyphenated source-description-suffix pattern, but 'pricing_info' breaks convention with snake_case and a different suffix style; internal structure also varies between 'demand-scorer', 'benchmark', and 'planner'.
Seven tools is well-scoped for a location-demand bundle; each covers a distinct analytical function without redundancy, though the two demographic scorers could arguably be one.
The set covers key location intelligence factors (hazards, transit, demographics, property, traffic), but lacks a composite/aggregation tool or broader economic indicators; minor gaps exist but core workflows are supported.