cheapest_way_to_play

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It notes that it provides 'live numbers' and 'today's actual Jita price', indicating real-time data fetching. However, it does not explicitly state whether authentication is required, whether it is read-only, or any limitations. This is adequate but leaves some gap.

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, long sentence but well-structured with a colon and list, front-loading the main topic. Every part adds value, though it is slightly dense. It earns a 4 for being efficient without being sparse.

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 informational tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does: explains Alpha/Omega, PLEX, Jita price, and gives a recommendation. It is complete for its complexity level.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning because there are no parameters to document. This is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: explaining EVE's pay-vs-play economy, including Alpha vs Omega, PLEX, Jita price, and a recommendation. It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like isk_guidance or what_should_i_do_tonight, which focus on different aspects.

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 implies usage for players wanting to understand cost options in EVE, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. The context is clear, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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