justhandled_agent_cost_decomposer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It discloses the $0.05 fee on Base mainnet, a key side effect, and indicates the tool calculates and flags. However, it doesn't mention whether any state changes occur, permissions required, or error 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?

Single sentence that front-loads the main action and cost. Every word earns its place.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves unclear the exact return format (per-call array? single flag?). It covers cost and purpose but lacks detail on output structure and edge cases.

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%, and the description only hints at 'per call' and 'budget overrun' without explaining the required fields like input_tokens or input_usd_per_million. It introduces concepts like cached-token costs that aren't directly present in the schema, which could confuse.

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 'Calculate' to specify the action and identifies the resources: model, cached-token, and external-tool costs per call, plus budget overrun flagging. This clearly differentiates it from the sibling preflight tools.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use the tool (cost analysis per call, budget monitoring) but does not name alternatives or exclusions. Since none of the sibling tools overlap in purpose, this is acceptable.

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