get_cost_estimate_object_storageReturn the metered per-GB rate and minimums for American Cloud object storage so you can estimate usage-based costs. Takes no arguments and reflects actual billing.
Get the metered pricing for object storage (per-GB rate and minimums). Takes no arguments — object storage is billed by actual usage.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new information beyond that: the response carries a per-GB rate plus minimums, and the tool is argument-free because billing is usage-based. It stops short of describing pagination or output shape, but for a static pricing lookup this is solid added context.
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?
Two short sentences, zero filler. The core purpose is front-loaded and the clarification about arguments follows it in a way that directly answers the next question an agent would have.
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 no output schema and no parameters, the description is the only source of truth about what comes back, and it does mention per-GB rate and minimums. It could be slightly more explicit about whether the result is global or region-scoped, but for a one-call pricing lookup it is close to complete.
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?
There are zero parameters, which sets a baseline of 4. The description reinforces this explicitly with "Takes no arguments," preventing an agent from speculatively inventing filter inputs.
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 names a specific verb and resource ("Get the metered pricing for object storage") and even enumerates the returned figures (per-GB rate and minimums). It is clearly distinguishable from the block-storage, snapshot, and VM cost-estimate siblings by the resource noun, though it never names an alternative explicitly.
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 is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the pricing lookup for object storage. The line "object storage is billed by actual usage" hints at why no filtering parameters are offered, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-to-use-a-sibling guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.