Price items at Jita

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose key behavior: Jita 4-4 market scope, lowest sell/highest buy order selection, and a ~30 minute cache. It does not describe output format or edge cases, but the core operational behavior is transparent enough for a simple read-only price query.

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?

The description is three short sentences, each earning its place: what the tool returns, the cache caveat, and a practical usage example. It is front-loaded with the core pricing behavior and avoids filler.

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 one-parameter pricing tool with no output schema, the description provides enough context: the market location, the two price values, and the budget-checking use case. It could more explicitly describe the response shape or behavior for invalid/missing typeIds, but the essentials are present.

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 only parameter, typeIds, is mentioned as a 'list of typeIds,' but the description adds little beyond the schema's property name and type. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should compensate more by explaining constraints like the 1-60 item limit or the meaning of a typeId. It is adequate but not richly informative.

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 specifies what the tool does: it retrieves Jita 4-4 market prices for a list of typeIds, distinguishing lowest sell order (buy cost) from highest buy order (sell value). This is specific enough to differentiate it from siblings like eve_get_item and eve_evaluate_fit.

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 description gives a concrete use case: 'Use totals to check a fit against a budget.' It implies the tool is for pricing lists of items in bulk, not for single-item lookup or search. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is reasonably clear.

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