Find low-cost countries for a given SMS service, check exact sell prices, and filter results by maximum provider cost.
Cheapest countries for one SMS service, with the exact sell price (free) (free)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max rows (default 25, max 250) | |
| max_usd | No | Skip countries above this provider cost | |
| service | Yes | Service name, e.g. Discord |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no read-only status, no auth or rate-limit notes, no mention of whether the pricing is cached or live, and no indication of how 'free' relates to the reported price.
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?
It is a single short, front-loaded sentence, which is good, but the duplicated '(free) (free)' is unexplained filler that adds no meaning and makes the statement read as malformed.
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 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it does not explain the shape of the result (country/price fields), how limit and max_usd interact, or what 'free' means, leaving real ambiguity about the call's behavior and output.
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 coverage is 100%, so limit, max_usd, and service are already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description only vaguely gestures at the 'one SMS service' idea and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.
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 resource and scope: cheapest countries for one SMS service, with sell price. An agent can infer it is a price-listing/comparison tool. It does not differentiate itself from nearby siblings like sms_quote or sms_services, and the trailing '(free) (free)' is garbled noise.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus sms_quote, sms_services, or sms_rental_quote, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent is left to infer that this is the cheapest-country price comparison call.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.