Find Cheapest Models

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

Annotations already cover key behavioral traits (read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world), so the description adds minimal value beyond this. It does not disclose additional context such as rate limits, authentication needs, or data sources. However, it does not contradict the annotations, as 'Find' aligns with read-only behavior.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with a clear purpose statement, followed by structured sections for args, returns, and examples. However, the 'Args' section is somewhat redundant with the schema, and the examples could be more concise, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 the tool's moderate complexity, rich annotations, and full schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It explains the tool's purpose, parameters, and outputs with examples, though it lacks details on output format (e.g., structure of pricing details) and does not have an output schema to compensate.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description repeats parameter information in the 'Args' section without adding significant meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as clarifying edge cases or usage nuances. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('cheapest LLM models'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on cost optimization rather than comparison, estimation, listing, or provider listing. It specifies the core function of identifying the most economical models.

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 provides clear context for usage through examples that show when to apply filters (e.g., by provider or context window), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'tokencost_compare_models' or 'tokencost_list_models'. The examples imply usage scenarios but lack direct sibling differentiation.

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