Estimate Hedra Generation Cost

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces safety with 'WITHOUT submitting a job or spending any wallet balance.' It adds valuable nuance about non-quotable models (server-side measurement, refusal fallback), which goes beyond the annotations. No contradiction; slight room for more detail on idempotency but not significant.

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 well-structured with clear sections (intro, args, returns, examples) and no filler. It is slightly long due to duplicate parameter listing, but each section adds value and the examples are practical. The front-loaded first sentence captures the core purpose.

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 two-parameter tool without an output schema, the description covers the key aspects: purpose, safety, parameter construction, return variability, and edge cases like non-quotable prices. It references sibling tools for building inputs and is robust enough for an agent to invoke 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful cross-tool guidance: the input object is 'the same input object you'd pass to hedra_submit_job' and should be 'built against hedra_get_model_input_schema.' This provides context not present in the schema, earning a 4.

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 opens with 'Estimate the cost in USD of running a model with a given input, WITHOUT submitting a job or spending any wallet balance,' using a specific verb and resource and explicitly distinguishing it from job submission. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like hedra_submit_job.

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 explicitly recommends using it before hedra_submit_job for expensive operations and provides concrete use/don't-use examples ('Use when: about to generate a 4K video... Don't use when: the model is cheap/fixed-price'). This names the alternative and gives clear criteria.

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