get_pricing

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful scope by naming the three data categories returned, but discloses nothing about freshness, network specificity, or whether the values are cached/static. Adds some value over annotations, but not rich behavioral context.

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?

A single compact sentence with no wasted words, and the data categories are listed up front. It is slightly too terse given the absence of a verb, but nothing is padded.

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 input parameters and no output schema, the description bears the burden of conveying what comes back, and listing fee formula, referral program, and whitelisted token mints covers the main return surface. An agent can form a reasonable expectation of the response. It stops short of full completeness by not clarifying how this differs from get_status/get_referral_status.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify and the baseline is 4. No parameter syntax or format details are needed or missing.

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 enumerates the resource contents (fee formula, referral program, whitelisted token mints), which gives more specificity than the bare name. But it is a verbless noun fragment and never states that it retrieves configuration data, and 'referral program' overlaps conceptually with the sibling get_referral_status, so it does not sharply differentiate itself. Purpose is inferable but vague.

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 statement of when to call this versus siblings such as get_status or get_referral_status, nor any prerequisite or sequencing hint (e.g., call before build_payment to compute fees). Usage must be entirely inferred from the name.

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