Query Live Pricing

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only regarding registry facts, which is helpful, but it does not disclose that it makes an external network call to OpenRouter, potential latency, failure modes, or the need for network access. This is a significant omission for a live inquiry 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 sentence with no waste, but it is concise to the point of under-specification. It front-loads the key purpose and the non-mutating caveat, which is efficient. However, brevity sacrifices critical behavioral and parameter information, so while the structure is concise, the content is incomplete.

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?

The tool is complex (network call, live data) and has an output schema, but the description is minimal. It adds only the 'fact unchanged' caveat, but it omits the source of the data, the meaning of 'opt in', the expected output structure, and any prerequisites. Given the lack of annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description is not adequate for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it provides no parameter semantics. The schema defines 'identifier' and 'timeout' with no description, and the tool description does not explain what the identifier refers to (e.g., model ID or pricing ID) or what the timeout controls. This is a critical gap.

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 states the specific action ('opt in to an OpenRouter pricing inquiry') and clarifies that it does not modify canonical registry facts, which distinguishes its purpose from tools that update the registry. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives that might be confused with it, and the term 'opt in' is somewhat idiosyncratic.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when live pricing is needed, and it explicitly says that canonical registry facts are unchanged, which signals when not to use it (when updates are intended). However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or provide explicit exclusions, so there is some gap in guiding the agent away from similar inquiry tools.

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