FREE. Check a quote_ref from hsh_describe_data_need: status, frozen price, expiry, and pay_url if still payable.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| quote_ref | Yes | The quote reference, e.g. HSHQ-A1B2C3D4E5F6 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is free and returns specific fields (status, frozen price, expiry, pay_url). It gives a clear behavioral picture without contradictions.
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, concise sentence of 14 words. Every word adds value, and it is appropriately front-loaded with key information.
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 adequately explains the purpose, return values, and source of the input. It is complete enough for an agent to use 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 has 100% coverage for the single parameter, with a description providing an example. The tool description adds context by noting the parameter comes from hsh_describe_data_need, enhancing semantic meaning beyond the schema.
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 verb 'Check' and the resource 'quote_ref', and specifies the returned information (status, frozen price, expiry, pay_url). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like hsh_check_order and hsh_check_subscription by its unique focus on quotes.
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 that the tool should be used after obtaining a quote_ref from hsh_describe_data_need, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusions. The guidance is implied rather than 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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but some closely related tools (e.g., hsh-b2b-*, hsh-esg-* variants) could cause confusion. Descriptions help differentiate, but an agent might still misselect similar products.
Naming convention is mixed: some tools use hyphens (hsh-b2b-contact), others use underscores (hsh_broker_data_request). While mostly readable, the inconsistency could be confusing for agents expecting a uniform pattern.
32 tools is on the high side for a single server, but given its purpose as a data marketplace, the large number reflects a wide catalog. However, it may be overwhelming for agents to navigate.
Covers many data domains but has obvious gaps (e.g., weather, social media). The inclusion of custom data request tools (hsh_describe_data_need, hsh_broker_data_request) mitigates these gaps, allowing agents to request missing data.
