get_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 only states that the tool is 'free' and describes the data domain, but does not mention whether it is read-only, the response format, data freshness, or any limitations. This is minimal disclosure for a tool with no 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 description is extremely concise—a single phrase with no fluff. It front-loads the key facts (per-endpoint, pricing, payment network, free). However, it is so brief that it borders on under-specification, which prevents a higher score.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description should clarify what the response contains. It does not: 'Per-endpoint pricing and payment network' is ambiguous about whether it returns a list, a breakdown, or something else. The tool lacks the necessary context for an agent to understand its output, making it incomplete.

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, and the schema is empty (100% coverage vacuously). Per the baseline for 0 parameters, this scores 4. The description adds context about the pricing focus, but there are no parameter details to elaborate.

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 subject matter (per-endpoint pricing and payment network) and the cost aspect (free), which distinguishes it from generic fee-related tools. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'gets,' and the differentiation from sibling tools such as get_current_fees is only implicit.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_current_fees or get_fee_forecast. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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