connect_get_price

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context: the data is public, reference-only, and not the live paywall amount. This meaningfully communicates the tool's limitations and read-only nature beyond what the name alone would imply.

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, tightly packed sentence. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds the most important caveat ('reference only') and the live-amount distinction, with no redundant words.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is complete. It tells the agent what is returned, for which contexts, and how it relates to live paywall amounts. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 has zero parameters and the schema is empty with 100% coverage, so there is nothing for the description to document. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and no additional parameter explanation is needed.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Get'), a specific resource ('public x402 list prices'), and the scope ('for lookup, scores, and agent'). It also clarifies that these are reference-only prices, distinguishing the tool from any live paywall price mechanism without needing to compare with siblings.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: to retrieve reference/list prices. It also explicitly says live amounts are in 402 responses, telling the agent when not to rely on this tool for actual paywall amounts. It does not name a specific sibling alternative, but the 402-response exclusion provides actionable guidance.

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