audit_pricingFetches the price, delivery window, terms, and checkout URLs for Project Feldspar's paid security, correctness, and maintainability audit.
Describe Project Feldspar's paid code audit (security, correctness, maintainability; three independent AI review passes), its price, delivery window, the Terms and the checkout URLs. No arguments.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and a closed world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful content context (what information is returned: price, delivery window, Terms, checkout URLs) but discloses nothing about caching, freshness of pricing, or auth/ordering prerequisites.
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 tightly packed sentence front-loads the verb and resource, then enumerates the payload. No filler, no repetition of annotation-provided facts, and the "No arguments" note is placed last where it matters.
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 output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned content (scope, price, delivery window, Terms, checkout URLs). For a zero-argument informational tool whose annotations carry the safety profile, this is close to complete; only freshness/currency of pricing info is left unstated.
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, which is the baseline-4 case. The description explicitly confirms "No arguments," matching the empty schema with additionalProperties=false and removing any doubt about whether input is expected.
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 ("Describe") and a precise resource: the paid code-audit offering, including scope, price, delivery window, Terms and checkout URLs. The resource is clearly distinct from the sibling scan_repository (which acts on a repository), though the description never names or contrasts that sibling explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied by the content list and the phrase "how to order" in the title — an agent can infer it is an informational pre-purchase lookup. There is no explicit statement of when to call it versus scan_repository, and no exclusions or conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.