get_cost_basis

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions FIFO method, authentication, and identification, but does not disclose side effects, data freshness, error handling, or whether the operation is read-only (though 'Get' implies it). Minimal behavioral disclosure beyond the name.

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?

Two sentences, each serving a clear purpose: first defines functionality and scope, second gives parameter and auth guidance. No wasted words, but could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for parameter groups).

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter descriptions, the description covers identification and auth adequately for a simple get operation. However, it lacks details on output format, error behavior, and any constraints beyond authentication.

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%, but description adds semantic meaning: it explains mutual exclusivity of cardId vs setCode+setNumber, and implies isFoil via 'card+finish'. This significantly compensates for the bare schema.

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?

Description clearly states it retrieves FIFO cost basis for a specific card+finish for the authenticated user. It explains the alternative identification methods (cardId or setCode/setNumber). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools that also deal with card data, like get_card_performance or get_realized_gains.

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?

Provides guidance on parameter usage (pass either cardId or setCode/setNumber) and authentication requirement (Requires IWMM_API_KEY). But no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context relative to siblings, nor alternatives.

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