recipe_price_breakdownFetch the estimated ingredient cost breakdown for a Spoonacular recipe by id. Returns per-ingredient price in US cents and the total estimated cost per serving.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds value by explaining the 'estimated' nature and exact return contents (per-ingredient price in US cents, total estimated cost per serving). This goes beyond what the annotations alone convey.
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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and resource, and contains no filler. Every phrase earns its place, and the return format is stated efficiently.
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?
This is a simple read-only tool with a single parameter and an output schema available. The description sufficiently covers what the tool does and what it returns, and it does not need to explain the return schema in detail since that is structured elsewhere.
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 one undocumented `id` parameter (0% schema description coverage). The description clarifies that `id` refers to a 'Spoonacular recipe', which is minimal but helpful. However, it does not elaborate on expected id format or validation, leaving the agent to infer from the example value.
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 opens with a specific verb ('Fetch') and a clear resource ('estimated ingredient cost breakdown'), scoped by recipe `id`. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like recipe_information or recipe_ingredients, which focus on other aspects of a recipe.
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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need the ingredient cost breakdown for a given recipe ID. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the focused wording provides enough context for an agent to select this tool over 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.
The tool set bundles three unrelated domains, and within them several tools are near-indistinguishable: ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded overlaps with validate_claim, bet_research/polymarket_edges/polymarket_arbitrage all target betting opportunities, and meal_plan_generate duplicates meal_plan_week. The aspect-specific recipe fetchers (ingredients/nutrition/summary/taste) also blur with recipe_information.
Most tools follow a reasonable snake_case verb_noun pattern (recipe_search, resolve_entity, compare_entities, unsubscribe), and each cluster (recipe_*, polymarket_*, ask_pipeworx*) is internally consistent. However, conventions fragment across clusters — bare verb memory tools (remember, forget, recall), the ask_pipeworx_beta/_grounded suffix family, and the odd generate_llms_txt — so no single predictable scheme governs the whole surface.
49 tools is far too many for a coherent surface, and crucially the count is misaligned with the server's stated identity: only 18 of 49 tools actually belong to the Spoonacular food domain, while 27 are Pipeworx data/prediction-market tools and 3 are generic memory utilities. The server appears to be three products mashed into one.
For the core Spoonacular food domain the surface is reasonably complete — search for recipes/products/ingredients, detail fetchers, meal plans, wine pairing, and unit conversion all exist. But the overwhelming presence of unrelated Pipeworx and memory tools makes the server's actual purpose ambiguous, and gaps are hard to assess when the food tools share the namespace with SEC filings and Polymarket arbitrage.