pricing_infoFree — list every paid tool in the 'trade-logistics' 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, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds value by noting the tool is 'Free' and that it can be used without a wallet, which are important behavioral and prerequisite details 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 two concise sentences that front-load the primary action ('list every paid tool...') and follow with a usage hint. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.
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 it returns (price, payTo address, network) and when to use it ('first if you don't have a wallet ready yet'). 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 tool has 0 parameters, and the schema is empty, so the description is not required to explain parameter meanings. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary info about parameters.
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 the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'list every paid tool in the 'trade-logistics' bundle with its price, payTo address and network.' This distinguishes it from sibling evidence tools, which focus on specific trade/logistics topics rather than pricing.
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 provides explicit usage context: 'Call this first if you don't have a wallet ready yet.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool as a preliminary step. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the unique purpose and sibling list imply that other tools are for evidence, not pricing.
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 logistics evidence domain: container exceptions, Panama Canal, bunker/tanker, Strait of Hormuz, voyage carbon, and pricing metadata. There is no overlap in purpose or resource type, so an agent can easily select the correct tool.
All tool names follow the same pattern: lowercase descriptive noun-phrases joined by hyphens (e.g., 'container-exception-evidence', 'panama-canal-queue-transit-imbalance'). The style is uniform and predictable, making the set feel cohesive.
With six tools, the server is well-scoped for a specialized evidence bundle. Each tool provides a distinct service, and pricing_info serves as a necessary meta-tool for onboarding. This is an appropriate size for the stated purpose.
The tools cover a diverse range of trade and logistics evidence scenarios, including container events, canal transits, fuel demand, strait flow recovery, and carbon compliance. While there are always possible additions (e.g., customs or general tracking), the current set covers the core evidence needs without obvious dead ends.