get_cost_basis

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

No annotations are provided, so description carries full burden. Describes it as a read operation ('Get') and specifies authentication need. Does not disclose error behavior, rate limits, or what happens if card not found. Adequate but not detailed.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action and resource. No unnecessary words; every part 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?

No output schema is provided. Description explains input parameters but does not specify return format, error handling, or behavior for missing data. For a tool with 4 parameters and no required ones, it is minimally complete.

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%, so description adds value by explaining the relationship between parameters (either cardId or setCode+setNumber) and linking isFoil to 'finish'. However, does not describe parameter types or constraints beyond what is in schema. Below high coverage but above low.

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 verb 'Get', resource 'FIFO cost basis', and identifies constraints (specific card+finish, authenticated user). It also provides two identification methods, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_inventory_quantities or get_portfolio_breakdown.

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?

Explicitly instructs to pass either cardId or (setCode, setNumber), and mentions authentication requirement. However, lacks guidance on when to use this over alternative tools or when not to use it, which would improve context for an AI agent.

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