Price info

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full transparency burden. It explicitly states it 'reads' specific state variables and 'returns a wave summary,' clearly implying a read-only operation with no side effects. It also discloses the exact pricing config (priceStart 1 USDC, x2 per wave, no cap), adding concrete behavioral context. Minor omissions like error conditions or permissions are acceptable for a simple read tool.

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 entire description is one tight sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Explain the pricing') and then efficiently lists the inputs, config values, and output. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 that there are no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It names the key inputs (currentWave, currentPrice, epoch config), the exact config constants, and the output type (wave summary). The only minor gap is that the structure of the wave summary is unspecified, but for a tool this simple it is likely not essential.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing to describe. Per the rubric, a 0-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4. The description does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation because none exist.

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 a specific verb-resource pair, 'Explain the pricing,' and then details what it reads (currentWave, currentPrice, epoch config) and what it returns (a wave summary). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like collection_stats or craft_info, which focus on other domains.

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 the tool is for retrieving a pricing summary based on current wave state, but it never explicitly states when to use it versus alternatives or any exclusions. An agent can infer 'use this when pricing info is needed,' but no direct guidance or comparison to siblings is provided.

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