Calculate cloud API egress bandwidth costs for a given payload size and monthly traffic. Returns cost at 25%, 50%, and 75% reduction scenarios.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| region | No | Cloud region: us, eu, ap, sa, af, me, or AWS region codes | |
| monthlyRequests | No | Monthly API request volume (default 1,000,000) | |
| payloadSizeBytes | Yes | Payload size in bytes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the burden. It states that the tool 'Returns cost at 25%, 50%, and 75% reduction scenarios,' which is useful. However, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as whether it is read-only, what assumptions are made, or how region affects pricing. This is adequate but not rich.
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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the action verb 'Calculate'. It conveys purpose and return value without any fluff or repeated 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?
There is no output schema, so the description's mention of return scenarios ('25%, 50%, and 75% reduction scenarios') helps fill that gap. It also names the two key inputs (payload size and monthly traffic) and clarifies the tool's scope, making it reasonably complete for its complexity.
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?
All three parameters have descriptions in the schema, so coverage is 100%. The description mentions payload size and monthly traffic but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline of 3 applies since schema does the heavy lifting.
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 the specific verb 'Calculate' and identifies the exact resource 'cloud API egress bandwidth costs'. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like payload_analyze and field_prune_suggest by focusing on cost estimation rather than payload analysis or pruning.
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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: to calculate egress bandwidth costs with reduction scenarios. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is sufficient given the tool's straightforward purpose.
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 targets a distinct aspect: cost estimation, comparison, pruning suggestions, and structural analysis. No two tools overlap in purpose, making misselection unlikely.
Names mostly follow a verb_noun pattern (compare_payloads, payload_analyze) with slight inconsistencies like 'bandwidth_cost_calc' (abbreviation) and 'field_prune_suggest' (two verbs). Overall predictable and readable.
Four tools is a well-scoped set for a payload auditing utility, covering analysis, comparison, cost, and suggestions without excess or deficiency.
The set covers analysis, comparison, and cost estimation, but lacks a tool to apply pruning or generate an optimized payload. However, comparison implies an external optimized version, so the gap is minor.