Total cost of ownership for a team: the seat-aware, annual-aware subscription line plus the hidden-cost line items. Params: slug, seats, tier, billing (monthly|annual).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Product slug. | |
| tier | No | Plan name, e.g. "Business". Optional; defaults to the first paid plan. | |
| seats | No | Team size (per-seat products). | |
| billing | No | Billing cadence. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes what the tool returns (TCO with hidden costs) but does not state whether it is read-only or has side effects. On the positive side, it does not contradict any annotations since none exist, but more transparency would be beneficial.
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, but the second sentence redundantly lists parameters already detailed in the input schema. While not overly long, it could be more concise by omitting the param list and focusing on tool behavior.
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?
With 4 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the input semantics well but gives no indication of the output structure (e.g., numeric value, breakdown). It is adequate for basic use but not fully complete for an agent to understand what the tool returns.
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 the baseline is 3. The description merely lists the parameter names and for 'billing' repeats the enum values from the schema. It adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., defaults for tier are already in schema description).
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 computes 'Total cost of ownership for a team' with seat-aware and annual-aware subscription plus hidden costs. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_pricing or get_hidden_costs, which handle only part of the calculation.
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 when a combined TCO (subscription + hidden costs) is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings or provide when-not scenarios. The guidance is implicit, not explicit.
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: from TCO calculation to comparison, discovery, LLM cost estimation, negotiation guides, hidden costs, positioning, price history, and full pricing records. No two tools overlap significantly; they complement each other.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with lowercase and underscores, primarily using 'get_' for five tools and other specific verbs like 'calculate', 'compare', 'discover', 'estimate'.
With 9 tools, the server is well-scoped for a pricing analysis domain, covering essential queries without being overwhelming or sparse.
The tool surface comprehensively covers the pricing domain: discovery, comparison, detailed pricing, hidden costs, TCO, price history, positioning, and negotiation advice. No obvious gaps are present for the intended use case.
