get_quoteCatalog price for a task without creating it. Seller offers on a real task may be lower or higher.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | Yes | Catalog task type (see list_services). | |
| params | No | That type's parameters (see list_services), e.g. duration for video. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "type": "object"
+}Input schema / properties / params / descriptionAdded value: +"That type's parameters (see list_services), e.g. duration for video."Input schema / properties / type / descriptionAdded value: +"Catalog task type (see list_services)."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description is not burdened with safety disclosure. It usefully adds that this is a catalog/estimate figure that does not bind the seller, since live offers may be higher or lower — genuine behavioral context beyond the annotations.
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 short sentences, purpose front-loaded followed by the caveat; no filler. Slightly terse phrasing ("Catalog price for a task") costs a point on clarity rather than length.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the nested params object is covered by the schema's list_services pointer. The estimate-vs-real-offer caveat closes the main interpretive gap; only auth/prerequisite context is missing.
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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters (type, params) are documented with pointers to list_services. The description adds nothing about parameter usage, which is acceptable given the schema does the work.
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?
States a specific verb+resource (get a quote / catalog price) and scope constraint ("without creating it"), which implicitly distinguishes it from create_task. It never names a sibling explicitly, so differentiation relies on inference.
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?
"Without creating it" implies the pre-purchase estimation context versus create_task, and the second sentence signals that a real offer may differ from the quote. However there is no explicit when-to-use instruction, no named alternative, and no prerequisites.
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.