Estimate current and projected energy charges to forecast costs, not a full utility bill.
Estimate current and projected energy charges, not a complete utility bill.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| current | Yes | ||
| is_demo | Yes | ||
| projected | Yes | ||
| tariff_id | Yes | ||
| assumptions | Yes | ||
| projection_method | Yes | ||
| speakable_summary | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only the scope limitation; there is no mention of auth requirements, data freshness, assumptions behind the projection, or failure modes. For a zero-annotation estimation tool this is thin.
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 front-loaded sentence that states the estimate and immediately bounds its scope. No filler or 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?
With zero parameters and an output schema present, return values are already covered, so the description's main job is the scope caveat, which it delivers. However, with no annotations it should do more to explain the basis of the estimate and its limitations.
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 no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds nothing about parameterization because there is none to document.
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 ('Estimate') and resource ('current and projected energy charges'), and clarifies scope with 'not a complete utility bill.' It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like power_estimate_load_impact or power_compare_periods, leaving some ambiguity about overlap.
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?
The phrase 'not a complete utility bill' implies a when-not condition, warning the agent that this is a partial estimate. But no explicit alternative tool is named for when a full bill or a different projection is needed, so routing guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.