Hubris

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals that the balance includes kopecks as a string for precision, which is a meaningful output nuance. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, has no side effects, or what happens on errors.

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 that immediately states what the tool returns and the key formatting nuance. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

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 zero-parameter read-only balance getter with no output schema, the description gives the essential return information: account balance in rubles with kopecks as a string. It is slightly light on explicit output structure or error/authentication behavior, but the tool's simplicity makes the description largely sufficient.

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 schema covers all parameter semantics vacuously. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools is appropriate.

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 identifies the resource (account balance) and the currency/format (rubles and kopecks as a string). However, it is a noun phrase rather than an explicit action statement like 'Returns...', so it does not fully meet the 5-level bar for a specific verb.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no exclusions or prerequisites. While one can infer it is for checking account balance, the text itself does not say this or mention any sibling tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden but provides only one concrete behavioral trait: no streaming. 'Full parity' implies standard OpenAI-compatible request/response behavior, yet auth, rate-limit, error, and side-effect characteristics are not spelled out.

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 dense sentence with the key caveat (no streaming) included. Every word earns its place and no redundant schema content is repeated.

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?

The description is adequate for an API-savvy agent because the parity statement encodes request/response semantics, but for an 11-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations it leaves non-API-specific context (return format, error behavior, auth) implicit. It relies heavily on the agent already knowing /v1/chat/completions.

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 0%, but the parity statement gives the parameter names the semantics of OpenAI's chat completions API, which is substantial shared meaning. This compensates for the undocumented schema better than a generic summary would, though it still delegates detailed parameter explanations to external knowledge.

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 states that the tool has full parity with the well-known /v1/chat/completions endpoint and explicitly excludes streaming, which makes its function clear. It lacks an explicit verb like 'generate', but the endpoint reference is specific enough to distinguish it from the unrelated model/balance 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?

Usage context is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for standard chat completions since no other chat-oriented sibling exists. The only explicit guidance is the exclusion of streaming ('без streaming'); there is no stated when-to-use or when-not-to-use discussion beyond that.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that internal markup and Central Bank exchange rate are not exposed, and that pricing is in rubles. However, it does not describe side effects, authentication needs, or the exact scope of what the returned price covers.

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 short sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds a relevant limitation. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 one-parameter read-only lookup, the schema covers invocation and 'modelId' is reasonably self-explanatory. Still, there is no output schema and the description does not explain the return shape or how to discover valid model IDs. It is mostly adequate for a minimal tool but leaves some gaps.

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 0%, and the description does not explain modelId beyond what the property name implies. There is no mention of where to find valid model IDs, any format requirements, or how the ID maps to a model. The tool name and schema make it inferable, but the description adds no parameter-level 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 clearly identifies the tool as providing model pricing in rubles, which is a specific resource and currency. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but 'pricing' is distinct from balance, chat, listing, and search functions.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus models_list, models_search, or chat_complete. The description does not mention that modelId can be obtained from models_list or any prerequisites, leaving selection to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does mention cursor pagination, which is useful, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the response shape is, or whether there are any side effects. The word 'catalog' implies read-only but is not explicit.

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 short and to the point, with the core purpose front-loaded and the pagination behavior stated right after. Every word earns its place, though the brevity leaves gaps in other dimensions.

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 listing tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides only the core concept and a pagination hint. It lacks information about return format, ordering, authentication, or how this tool relates to its siblings, which is insufficient for reliable selection and 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?

Schema description coverage is 50%: only the cursor parameter has a description. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, and it does not explain how limit interacts with pagination or what values are appropriate. Since schema coverage is not high, the description should have compensated but did not.

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 identifies the tool as a catalog of active models, which conveys a listing operation on a specific resource. It also mentions cursor pagination, adding precision. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like models_search or models_get_pricing.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use models_list versus alternatives such as models_search or models_get_pricing. The description lacks exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the purpose and does not reveal how the search behaves, such as whether filters are combined with AND/OR, whether the result is sorted, or whether the operation is read-only. The word 'search' implies a read operation, but no further behavior is disclosed.

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 extremely concise, using a single short phrase with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose effectively, but it offers no additional structure or formatting, which is fine for conciseness yet leaves other information gaps.

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?

With five optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is too sparse to be fully complete. It does not explain what the return value looks like, how the filter parameters interact, or how this tool relates to models_list, leaving an agent uncertain about the invocation context.

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 already documents 4 of 5 parameters, giving approximately 80% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description's reference to capability, price, and context aligns with existing parameter descriptions (capability, sort, minContext, maxInputPer1MRub) but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 a clear verb ('Поиск' – search), a specific resource ('моделей' – models), and names the key search dimensions (capability, price, context). It implies a filtered search rather than a plain list or pricing lookup, which differentiates it from siblings like models_list and models_get_pricing, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 the tool is for finding models by capability, price, or context, but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Without mentioning alternatives such as models_list or models_get_pricing, an agent must infer when to choose this tool over its siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.