get_fuel_pricesCurrent retail fuel prices for all API-supported countries. Supports the same price keys as /api/fuel/prices, including gasoline, diesel, LPG, CNG, E85, kerosene and grade variants. Pass country_code to get one country in detail; omit it for a summary list.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| country_code | No | ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code, e.g. DE. If omitted, returns all countries. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: the data is current retail pricing, it supports the same keys as the /api/fuel/prices endpoint, and the response shape changes between detailed single-country and summary list modes.
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 focused sentences with no filler. The core purpose and scope are front-loaded, followed by price-key coverage and parameter behavior. Every sentence earns its place.
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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the resource, price-key families, country scoping, and the two response modes. It could add unit/currency details, but the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
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 schema already documents country_code fully with 100% coverage. The description adds extra semantic value by explaining the behavioral difference between providing country_code ('get one country in detail') and omitting it ('summary list'), which the schema alone does not convey.
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 identifies the resource ('Current retail fuel prices') and its scope ('all API-supported countries'), and it enumerates specific price keys. It also distinguishes this from sibling comparison/cheapest tools by framing it as the general retail price retrieval endpoint.
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 gives clear parameter-level usage guidance: pass country_code for single-country detail, omit it for a summary list. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over siblings like compare_fuel_prices or find_cheapest_fuel, so the tool-selection guidance is only implied.
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 has a clearly distinct purpose targeting specific resources like fuel prices, events, weather, or stories, with no overlap in functionality. For example, compare_fuel_prices and find_cheapest_fuel serve different comparison and search roles, while get_fuel_prices provides detailed data, making misselection unlikely.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., compare_fuel_prices, get_currency_rate, list_events), using snake_case throughout. This predictability aids agents in understanding and selecting tools without confusion from mixed conventions.
With 11 tools, the count is well-scoped for the vanlife travel domain, covering key areas like fuel, events, weather, and stories. Each tool earns its place by addressing distinct needs, avoiding bloat while providing comprehensive coverage for planning and information retrieval.
The tool set offers strong coverage for vanlife travel, including fuel price comparison, event listings, weather suitability, and story searches, with no dead ends. A minor gap exists in lacking update or delete operations for user-specific data, but core informational and planning workflows are fully supported.