Calculate fare quotes between two points for Snapp trips using origin and destination coordinates or addresses.
Fare quote between two points
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dest | No | ||
| token | No | ||
| origin | No | ||
| to-lat | No | ||
| to-lng | No | ||
| compact | No | ||
| voucher | No | ||
| from-lat | No | ||
| from-lng | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Fare quote' weakly implies a non-mutating pricing lookup, but nothing is said about auth requirements (the token param), whether the result is binding, or whether vouchers affect the returned fare.
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 single sentence is short but severely under-specified rather than efficiently concise. Brevity here costs the agent the information it needs to invoke the tool correctly.
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?
A 9-parameter tool with zero annotations, no output schema, and no documented parameters is left almost entirely unexplained. The description should at minimum define the origin/destination options and the auth token, and it does none of that.
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% across 9 parameters. 'Between two points' gestures at origin/dest or the lat/lng pairs, but it adds no meaning for token, voucher, or compact, and no format or mutual-exclusivity guidance for the coordinate vs place-name inputs.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('Fare quote') and a rough scope ('between two points'), so the general intent is inferable. However, it does not distinguish this from closely named siblings like ride_options_quote or ride_request, nor does it clarify whether it is an estimate or a binding 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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when a quote is appropriate versus calling ride_request, and no indication of prerequisites or alternatives. The agent must guess the intended workflow step.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.