Retrieves the current price for a Bacon service and checks if your wallet and spending limits permit the purchase—free, with no payment or signing.
Gets Bacon's current price for one service without paying, and says whether your spending limits and wallet allow it. Free; nothing is signed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| service | Yes | A tool name (e.g. remove_background) or service id (e.g. remove-background). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that it is free, that nothing is signed, and that it reports whether spending limits and wallet allow the call — real behavioral value beyond a bare 'quote'. It doesn't cover return format, but that is minor for a preview 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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the key behavioral guarantees. Nothing wasted.
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 single-param preview tool with no output schema or annotations, the description supplies the essential safety and eligibility context. Return-value detail is missing but not critical.
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 that a 'service' is the target of the quote and ties it to the pricing check, reinforcing the schema's examples. No extra syntax detail, so not a 5.
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?
'Gets Bacon's current price for one service' names a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from siblings like wallet_status and remove_background by being explicitly a price query.
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?
'without paying' and 'Free; nothing is signed' clarify the safe read context and implicitly distinguish it from the actual paid execution sibling tools. It doesn't name an alternative explicitly, but the when-to-use context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.