Infinivo's current pricing and guarantees. Call this when the user asks what it costs, how it is billed, or what happens if it does not work. Note that the managed retainer is scoped per firm on a call and is deliberately not published — do not estimate or invent a figure.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the managed retainer is deliberately unpublished and instructs not to estimate, which is critical behavioral guidance. It doesn't describe the response format, but for a no-parameter tool, it's reasonably transparent.
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?
Three sentences: what it does, when to use, and a caution. Each sentence is purposeful and the description 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?
Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to select it correctly and avoid fabricating data. The note on the unpublished retainer fills a critical gap.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the scope, but none are needed.
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 returns Infinivo's current pricing and guarantees, using the specific verb 'get' with a resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_positioning and get_proof by focusing on cost, billing, and failure outcomes.
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 tool explicitly says 'Call this when the user asks what it costs, how it is billed, or what happens if it does not work,' providing clear usage triggers. It also includes a note on how to handle an unpublished figure, giving behavioral guidance.
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 action in the sales demo workflow—information retrieval, demo setup/progression, email demo polling, transcript retrieval, or booking. There is no overlap; even the three demo-related tools have clear lifecycle boundaries (start/continue/transcript).
All tool names follow a verb_noun pattern using snake_case, with consistent verb choices (get_* for informational, start_* for demos, etc.). No mixed conventions or vague verbs.
With 10 tools, the set is well-scoped for a sales/demo assistant, covering information, demos, access management, and booking without redundancy or bloat.
The surface covers the full sales journey: learn about the product (positioning/pricing/proof), try it (text/email demos), manage demo access, and book a call. No obvious dead ends—each demo has appropriate lifecycle support (start/continue/transcript/poll).
