VAP Media · Unified MCP Server for AI Agents (Flux · Veo · Suno)

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral context. It states the base cost but doesn't explain how parameters affect the final estimate, whether this is a read-only operation, if it makes any external calls, or what the return format looks like. The description is insufficient for a tool with cost implications.

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?

Extremely concise single sentence with zero waste. Every word earns its place by stating the core function and providing the base cost figure. No unnecessary elaboration or repetition.

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 cost estimation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain how the estimate is calculated from parameters, what format the response takes, or whether this is a real-time quote versus cached pricing. Users need more context to understand the tool's behavior.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions the base cost but doesn't explain how parameters like resolution affect pricing (though the schema notes 1080p adds +33% cost). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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: estimating video generation cost with a specific price point. It distinguishes from siblings like 'estimate_cost' (generic) and 'estimate_music_cost' (music-specific) by specifying video generation. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the parameters that affect cost calculation beyond the base price.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'estimate_cost' (which might be more generic) or 'generate_video' (which actually creates videos). The description doesn't mention prerequisites, dependencies, or typical usage scenarios beyond the basic function.

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