Get validated fuel-price source status and limitations; never invents a current price.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | ||
| sources | Yes | ||
| coverage | No | ||
| evidence | Yes | ||
| freshness | Yes | ||
| citationUrl | No | ||
| limitations | Yes | ||
| schemaVersion | Yes | ||
| knowledgeVersion | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful extra context by promising the tool 'validated' information and explicitly stating it never invents a current price, which is a behavioral guarantee not present in 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?
The entire description is one tight sentence with no filler. The main function is front-loaded, and the crucial behavioral caution about not inventing prices is appended in a clear semicolon-separated clause.
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 zero-parameter, read-only, idempotent tool with an output schema present, so the description does not need to explain input or return structure. It covers what the tool provides, validates, and explicitly refuses to do, making it complete for correct invocation.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the description carries no parameter-documentation burden. The empty schema is fully covered, and no parameter semantics are needed beyond what the schema already expresses.
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 names a specific resource ('fuel-price source status and limitations') and a clear verb ('get'), and distinguishes itself from any price-inventing behavior by stating it never invents a current price. This is specific enough to separate it from generic context sibling tools.
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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_source_context or get_answer_context. The domain-specific wording implies a use case, but there are no stated conditions, exclusions, or sibling references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.