The costs beyond the sticker price (implementation, add-ons, overage, support) for one product, with the intro context and category positioning. This is the data most pricing answers miss.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Product slug. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It lists specific hidden cost categories (implementation, add-ons, overage, support) and mentions 'intro context and category positioning,' giving the agent a clear picture of the output scope.
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?
Two sentences: first is informative, second is slightly promotional but adds a usage hint. No wasted words overall, though the second sentence could be more direct.
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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and output contents (hidden costs + context). Some missing details like return format, but adequate.
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% for the sole parameter 'slug.' The description adds no new semantic information beyond the schema's 'Product slug.' Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 retrieves 'costs beyond the sticker price' for one product, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_pricing or compare_software. The verb 'get' matches the tool name.
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 use for uncovering hidden costs but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. The phrase 'for one product' hints at single-product scope, but no direct comparison to siblings.
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.
