pricing_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: it declares the endpoint is free and requires no API key, and describes the live, dynamic nature of the data. It does not discuss rate limits or error behavior, keeping it from 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?

Two sentences with zero filler. The core purpose and inventory of pricing components are front-loaded, followed immediately by the usage cue and access note.

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 parameterless, read-only pricing endpoint with no output schema, the description is complete: it covers the return content (funding pricing, research availability/price, watchlist delivery costs) and authentication requirements. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 takes zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline score of 4 applies. The description does not need to explain parameter syntax and appropriately focuses on output content instead.

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 names the resource ("live price list") and enumerates exactly what it covers: funding records, research, and watchlist deliveries, with pricing detail for each. An agent can immediately distinguish this from sibling tools like funding_get or research_get, which fetch actual records rather than pricing.

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?

It gives an explicit when-to-use condition: "Use it to quote a cost before a large call." It also states the access model ("Free, needs no key"), which removes any uncertainty about prerequisites. No alternative pricing tool exists among the siblings, so no when-not guidance is needed.

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