execution_cost_estimatorExecution Cost Estimator; deterministic signed assessment over supplied input.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "budget_atomic": 6000,
+ "steps": [
+ {
+ "id": "s1",
+ "max_cost_atomic": 2000
+ },
+ {
+ "id": "s2",
+ "max_cost_atomic": 3000
+ }
+ ]
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds 'deterministic signed' assessment, hinting at repeatability and authenticity, but does not explain what signing means, what authentication is required, or what the assessment returns.
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 single sentence is front-loaded with the tool title and then uses vague filler ('deterministic signed assessment over supplied input'). It is under-specified rather than concise, and every part beyond the title fails to earn its place by adding actionable meaning.
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 tool with required cost steps and a budget input, sitting among many payment/transaction siblings, the description does not explain what is estimated, how budget relates to the result, or when another tool should be used. The output schema and annotations cover some gaps, but the description remains incomplete for correct 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?
The schema has 100% description coverage and includes an example with steps and budget_atomic, though the description itself says nothing about these required inputs. With high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not compensate for any gap.
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 restates the tool name/title as 'Execution Cost Estimator' and adds only the vague phrase 'deterministic signed assessment over supplied input.' It does not state a specific verb+resource beyond the title and gives no sibling differentiation against the many payment-related 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?
There is no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as payment_preflight or payment_optimizer. No prerequisites, exclusions, or routing context are provided.
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.