Retrieve all flight routes currently being price-tracked, including last known price and observation count.
List all routes currently being price-tracked, with their last known price and number of observations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It indicates the tool returns last known price and observation count, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or potential pagination for many routes. This is adequate but not comprehensive.
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 is clear, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and concise. Every part of the sentence adds value without redundancy.
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?
For a simple list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it states what is listed and what data is returned. It lacks mention of ordering or if all routes are returned at once, but given the simplicity, a 4 is appropriate.
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 has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% (trivially). Since there are no parameters to describe, the description adds no parameter information, but the baseline expectation for a no-param tool is 4. The description appropriately focuses on output.
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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'all routes currently being price-tracked', and specifies the output fields (last known price, number of observations). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like track_price (which adds routes) and get_price_history (history of a specific route).
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives is provided. The context implies it is for getting an overview of tracked routes, but there is no 'use when' or 'instead of' wording. A 3 reflects this lack of explicit usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.