Get the exact price of a specific call before making it. Free — this call costs nothing. The quoted price is binding: you will never be charged more than it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input | No | The input you intend to send | |
| product | Yes | Product id, e.g. "psych/effects" |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the call is free and the price is binding, but does not address authentication, rate limits, or side effects. The behavioral traits are partially covered but not comprehensively.
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, concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value: first defines action, second clarifies cost and binding nature. No wasted words.
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?
Given no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns. It mentions 'exact price' and 'quoted price' but does not specify format or additional fields. For a simple tool this is adequate but not complete.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., input is described as 'the input you intend to send' in both places). No enrichment.
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 purpose: 'Get the exact price of a specific call before making it.' This specifies a verb (get), a resource (price of a call), and a context (before making the call), distinguishing it from siblings like tollmint_catalog which likely lists products.
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 implies when to use ('before making it') and notes that it's free, but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. The sibling list does not include another pricing tool, so the guidance is sufficient for context.
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.
All 20 tools have clearly distinct purposes, grouped by domain prefixes (content_ai, design_ai, legal, psych, ref, tollmint, web). Even similar-sounding tools like psych_dark-pattern-detect and psych_dark-patterns are differentiated as a live scanner versus a reference taxonomy. No two tools overlap in functionality.
Naming mostly follows a prefix_descriptive pattern, but some tools use hyphens (content_ai-score, design_ai-slop-detect) while others use underscores (legal_accessibility, psych_biases). This minor inconsistency prevents a perfect score, but the pattern is still clear and readable.
20 tools is slightly above the typical 'well-scoped' range, but each tool serves a specific, justifiable need across multiple domains (legal, psychology, content analysis, geocoding, internal). The count feels comprehensive rather than bloated.
The tool surface covers all major areas implied by the domain prefixes: comprehensive legal compliance references, extensive psychology/behavioral design tools, content and design analysis, geocoding, and internal server management. No obvious gaps for the intended use cases.