find_shortest_pathFind how two Gonka documentation concepts are connected — useful for answering "how does X relate to Y" questions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| source | Yes | Starting concept name, e.g. "trial key". | |
| target | Yes | Destination concept name, e.g. "gateway". | |
| max_hops | No | Give up if the path is longer than this many edges. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety and idempotency are covered. The description adds no additional behavioral details beyond its purpose; this is acceptable given the strong annotation coverage.
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 a single, focused sentence (19 words) that states the purpose and a use case without any redundancy. It is well-structured and 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 presence of an output schema, complete parameter descriptions, and annotations clarifying read-only and closed-world behavior, the description provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. No additional return-value details are necessary.
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 has 100% coverage with clear parameter descriptions (e.g., 'Starting concept name', 'Destination concept name', 'Give up if the path is longer than this many edges'). The description does not add parameter-level information, but the schema alone is sufficient.
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 uses a specific verb ('Find') and clearly identifies the resource ('Gonka documentation concepts') and the goal ('how two ... are connected'). It also provides a concrete use case ('how does X relate to Y'), which differentiates it from sibling tools like get_neighbors or get_node.
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 explicitly states when the tool is useful ('answering how does X relate to Y questions'), giving clear context for use. It does not mention alternatives or exclusion cases, but the stated use case is sufficient.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is slight overlap between register_on_gonka and get_signup_link (both return signup links) and between get_pricing, calculate_savings, compare_providers, and suggest_model_for_task (all deal with pricing). Descriptions help differentiate, but boundaries are not perfectly sharp.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., calculate_savings, get_available_models, search_docs). No mixed conventions or abbreviations. Naming is predictable and clear.
18 tools is on the higher side, but each serves a specific function within pricing, documentation, and signup workflows. The count feels slightly bloated, particularly with closely related documentation graph tools, but overall still well-scoped.
The tool set comprehensively covers the domain of Gonka Network pricing: live pricing, comparisons, savings calculations, model recommendations, documentation search (graph and full-text), trial key provisioning, and signup links. No obvious gaps for the stated purpose.