Checks stored software prices against the vendor's live pricing page, returning per-plan results, read date, and page hash to confirm pricing is current.
Read the vendor's pricing page now and check the stored prices against it. Returns each plan's result, the read date and a hash of the page. Needs a free API key (TOOLRADAR_API_KEY); one read per tool per day.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Tool slug (e.g. 'notion') |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the auth requirement (TOOLRADAR_API_KEY), a rate limit (one read per tool per day), and the shape of the result (per-plan result, read date, page hash). It does not cover failure modes (unreachable page, rate-limit exhaustion) or confirm the operation is non-mutating, which keeps it below a 5.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by the return shape, then the operational constraints. No filler or restatement of the tool name.
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 one-parameter, non-mutating check with no output schema, the description covers what it does, what comes back, and the two things that will bite an agent (API key, daily limit). Only error/edge-case behavior is missing, which is a minor gap at this complexity.
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?
There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Tool slug (e.g. 'notion')'), so the schema already does the work. The description adds no format, example, or scoping meaning beyond that, which is the baseline 3 case.
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?
States a specific action and resource: fetch the vendor's live pricing page and compare it against stored prices. That is clearly distinct from retrieval siblings like get_pricing, though the description never names get_pricing as the 'stored, non-verified' alternative, so the differentiation is implied rather than explicit.
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 phrase 'now' and the comparison against 'stored prices' imply this is the freshness-checking path versus plain get_pricing, which is useful context. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement, e.g. whether to run it before or after get_pricing, or what to do if the daily read has already been consumed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.