ZahabPrice — Live Gold & Silver Prices

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses fee structures (0%, 17%, 40%, 1.15%), available months per provider, and the minimum purchase threshold. It does not detail output format or error handling, but the core calculation behavior is well explained.

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 three tightly written sentences: purpose, Tamara plans, Tabby plans and minimum. No fluff, every detail earns its place, and information is front-loaded.

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?

The description covers input constraints well (region, currency, fee schedules, minimum). However, with no output schema, it does not describe what the tool returns (e.g., monthly payment, breakdown, or error behavior for unsupported months). This leaves a gap for an agent that needs to present results to the user.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing fee percentages and the minimum spend, which are not in the schema. It also clarifies the allowed months per provider, reinforcing the schema's enum descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Calculates') and resource ('gold purchase installment plan'), naming the two providers (Tamara, Tabby). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_gold_price and get_silver_price, which retrieve prices rather than calculate installment plans.

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 clear context for when the tool is applicable: only in Saudi Arabia, with prices in SAR, and a minimum purchase of 200 SAR. It does not explicitly compare to alternatives, but the provider and plan details make the intended use obvious.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the data source, the ~60-second update frequency, and the inference fallback behavior. It doesn't detail return format, but for a simple read tool this is adequate and adds value beyond the schema.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence earns its place by providing functional detail (source, update rate, inference rules). 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 the tool's simplicity (2 optional parameters, no nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the essential information: what it returns, where it comes from, and how to choose parameters. It stops short of stating the currency of the returned price, but that is a minor omission for a tool that likely returns prices in a locally inferred currency.

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 already covers both parameters with enums and descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds practical semantics by explaining how to infer the country from user context and explicitly warns when to use the default, which is valuable beyond the raw schema.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Returns'), a specific resource ('live gold price per gram from zahabprice.com'), and an update cadence. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_silver_price and calculate_installment.

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 guidance on how to infer the country parameter from context (currency clues, location, language) and when to fall back to the default. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the context is clear and helpful.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the data source (zahabprice.com), the update frequency (~60 seconds), and a behavioral note about country inference. It doesn't detail return format or error behavior, but for a simple price getter this is sufficient.

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 front-load the core purpose and source, then add freshness and a cross-reference. 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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides purpose, source, freshness, and country inference. It doesn't explain the return format explicitly, but 'price per gram' gives a strong hint, and the reference to get_gold_price implies consistency with that tool.

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 already has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond referencing country inference context, which is not directly parameter-specific. Baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific action ('Returns live silver price per gram') and identifies the resource (zahabprice.com). It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying 'silver' and referencing get_gold_price for context.

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 usage for silver price lookups and provides context about country inference by referencing get_gold_price. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives or state when-not-to-use, but the tool's purpose is obvious from the name and description.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It accurately describes the output (all 37 countries with ISO codes and currencies) and implies a read-only operation via 'Returns'. It could explicitly say 'read-only' but the current wording is sufficient for a list tool.

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 that front-load the action and result, followed by a usage hint. No filler or redundant information.

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 no-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description fully specifies the return content and use cases. It is complete and leaves no 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 the baseline is set to 4. The description adds value by revealing what the output contains (ISO codes and currencies), which is beyond what the empty schema provides.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('all 37 supported countries') with concrete details (ISO codes, currencies). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_gold_price or calculate_installment.

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 states when to use: 'when the user asks about an available country or you need to verify a country code.' This provides clear context and leaves no ambiguity about tool selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.