get_cost_estimate_public_ipRetrieve the current price of a public IP address to estimate networking costs before provisioning. Takes no arguments and returns the cost directly.
Get the price of a public IP address. Takes no arguments.
| 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 readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only 'takes no arguments', which repeats the schema. It omits genuinely useful behavior: what the price represents (hourly/monthly), currency, whether it depends on region or on an existing allocated IP, and that the call is free of side effects.
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, purpose front-loaded, no filler. Every clause carries information an agent can act on.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description is the only place a caller can learn what comes back, and it says nothing about the shape of the price (single value vs. tiers, unit, currency). For a trivially simple pricing lookup this is a moderate rather than fatal gap, but it leaves the return value opaque.
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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4, and the description correctly confirms 'Takes no arguments', setting an accurate expectation for the caller.
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?
States a specific verb ('Get the price') and resource ('a public IP address'), which clearly separates it from the many other get_cost_estimate_* siblings (VM, block storage, snapshot, kubernetes, VPC network). It does not explicitly name those alternatives, but the resource noun is unambiguous.
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 only implied: an agent infers this is the pricing lookup for public IPs rather than for listing or fetching an IP, but there is no explicit 'use this when...' or 'use get_public_ip instead if you want the resource itself.' No mention of prerequisites, region scoping, or how it relates to the sibling cost-estimate tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.