Get UnoRouter model pricing

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about pricing being list prices before discounts and that free models are zero. However, it does not disclose limitations such as rate limits, authentication requirements (though 'public' implies none), pagination behavior, or response format, leaving some gaps for a read tool.

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, tightly written sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes only essential caveats (discounts, free models). Every clause adds value, and there is no redundant filler.

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 lookup tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key semantics and caveats. It explains the pricing basis and points to a dashboard for effective rates. It could benefit from describing the return structure, but the tool's simplicity makes this less critical.

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 input schema provides full descriptions for both parameters (limit and query), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already documents, so it remains at the baseline score of 3.

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 states the tool's function: 'Look up per-token pricing for UnoRouter models from the public pricing endpoint.' It uses a specific verb ('look up') and identifies the resource (pricing for models). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_models and chat, which serve different purposes.

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 provides clear context on how to interpret the results ('Prices are USD list prices per 1M tokens before per-group discounts') and points to an external alternative for effective rates (the account dashboard). It also notes that :free models are always 0. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus the sibling tools, though their purposes are distinctly different.

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