Sağlayıcıları listele

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by disclosing that the endpoint may require a commercial tier and will clearly say if the key lacks coverage. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 focused sentences: the first states the core function with a concrete example, the second covers the key caveat. There is no redundant content and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

The output schema covers return values, and annotations cover safety, so the description does not need to repeat those. However, it omits semantics for force_refresh and does not guide the agent toward sibling tools, leaving the description minimally adequate but not complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It clarifies that 'model' refers to the model being served by providers, but it says nothing about 'force_refresh', its purpose, or when an agent should set it. The compensation is incomplete.

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 uses a specific verb ('listeler') with a clear resource: providers serving a given model, including price and throughput. The example ('hangi sağlayıcı daha ucuz/hızlı veriyor') makes the intent unmistakable and differentiates it from siblings like list_models or get_model.

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 call the tool: when you need to compare providers for a specific model by cost or speed. It also warns about commercial-tier requirements, but it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool in favor of compare_models or list_models.

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