Returns Elephant Accountability's service tiers, pricing, delivery SLAs, and checkout / booking URLs. Optionally personalized to the asking buyer's company size or urgency.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tier | No | Optional: filter to one tier | |
| company_size | No | Buyer stage hint for tier recommendation |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It states the tool returns data and is optionally personalized, but lacks details on idempotence, side effects, or authentication needs. Could be more 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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with main output, then optional personalization. Very concise with 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?
Covers essential return elements and personalization. Without output schema, a bit more structure detail (e.g., list of objects with fields) would improve completeness, but it's adequate for a simple retrieval 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?
Schema covers both parameters with enum descriptions. The description adds value by explaining that company_size personalizes the offering, which is not in the schema description. Tie to tier is implicit.
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 clearly states what the tool returns: service tiers, pricing, SLAs, and URLs. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the optional personalization feature distinguishes it from sibling tools like assess_fit or get_proof_points.
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?
Description implies usage for retrieving offerings and optionally personalizing, but does not explicitly state when to use this versus siblings or provide exclusions. No when-not-to 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 function: assessing fit, listing surfaces, offering details, proof points, transparency metrics, and requesting audits. No overlap in purpose.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case (e.g., assess_fit, get_offerings, request_audit), making them predictable and easy to differentiate.
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for its domain of LLM SEO services, covering all key interactions without being bloated or sparse.
The tool surface covers prospecting, information retrieval, and action (request_audit), but lacks a mechanism for checking audit status or cancellation, which is a minor gap.