Retrieve cost budget information from Datadog to monitor and manage cloud spending, enabling better financial oversight of your infrastructure.
Get a budget.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_cost_budget"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get a budget.' implies a read-only operation but fails to specify whether it retrieves a single budget, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format might be. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
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 with 'Get a budget.', which is front-loaded but under-specified. While it avoids unnecessary words, it fails to provide essential context, making it inefficient in conveying necessary information rather than being appropriately sized.
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 the lack of annotations, no output schema, and a minimal description, the tool's definition is incomplete. For a read operation (implied by 'get'), the description should at least hint at what is returned or any constraints, but it does not, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively.
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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, meaning the input schema fully documents the lack of parameters. The description does not need to add parameter details, so a baseline score of 4 is appropriate as it doesn't detract from the schema's completeness.
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 'Get a budget.' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'get_cost_budget' without adding meaningful specificity. It lacks a clear verb-resource combination that distinguishes what kind of budget or from where it's retrieved, making it vague compared to more descriptive sibling tools like 'get_cost_budgets' or 'get_cost_by_tag_active_billing_dimensions'.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or differentiation from sibling tools such as 'get_cost_budgets' (plural) or other cost-related tools, leaving the agent without any usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.