Fetch specified Custom Costs files from Datadog to monitor and analyze cloud infrastructure expenses.
Fetch the specified Custom Costs file.
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_custom_cost"
}
}| 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 full burden. 'Fetch' implies a read operation, but the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'specified' means in practice. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Fetch') and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain what a 'Custom Costs file' is, how it's specified, what the return format looks like, or any error handling. For a tool in a complex ecosystem with many siblings, this leaves significant gaps.
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, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description mentions 'specified' which might imply some implicit specification, but since there are no parameters, the baseline is high. The description adds minimal value 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 'Fetch the specified Custom Costs file' clearly states the verb ('Fetch') and resource ('Custom Costs file'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_cost_custom_costs' (plural) or other cost-related tools, which would require more specificity for a perfect score.
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. With many sibling tools (including 'get_cost_custom_costs' and other cost-related tools), there's no indication of prerequisites, context, or distinctions that would help an agent choose appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.