Get API usage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool 'returns' data, which implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose potential behaviors like response structure, error conditions (e.g., invalid key), or whether this call consumes quota. This is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the essential information efficiently, which is appropriate for the tool's simplicity.

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 simple with no parameters and no output schema, yet it clearly states what will be returned. While it does not detail the exact structure of the return value, 'current plan, quota, and usage' sufficiently covers user needs for a usage-checking tool. Slightly more detail could be added, but it is essentially complete.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage (empty schema), the description is not expected to explain parameters. The baseline for zero params is 4, and the description adds no extra parameter-related information, so it maintains the baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and identifies the exact resource ('current plan, quota, and usage for the configured CommodityPriceAPI key'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from its data-focused siblings (e.g., get_gold_price, get_latest_rates), making its purpose 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?

The description implies usage for checking API consumption, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the sibling tools are all about market data, the use case is understandable but relies on inference rather than explicit guidance.

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