B2B bulk quote + 5% matching fee
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "gpu_quote"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses a '5% matching fee' but does not clarify whether invoking the tool is read-only, whether the quote is binding, how matching works, or whether the fee is charged up front.
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 very short and front-loaded, with no filler. However, its brevity comes at the cost of clarity, because the fragment does not explain the operation being performed.
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 quote tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is materially incomplete. It does not explain what a quote contains, whether the 5% fee is included in the returned quote, or how this differs from other compute-marketplace tools.
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 there is no parameter semantics to compensate for. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, and the description does not undermine the empty input schema.
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 'B2B bulk quote + 5% matching fee' is a noun fragment rather than a clear action, and it largely restates the tool name with qualifiers. It does not distinguish this tool from likely siblings such as gpu_cheapest, list_compute_offer, or place_compute_order.
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 explicit guidance on when to use gpu_quote versus alternatives like gpu_cheapest or place_compute_order. The phrase 'B2B bulk' implies a bulk context, but no prerequisites, exclusions, or selection criteria are stated.
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.