Estimate Stock Trends Workflow Cost

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations. It reveals the HTTP method (GET), indicates it is free/public, and explicitly discloses that it does not trigger any paid actions or wallet use. This is critical information for an agent to understand side effects, complementing the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the core function, followed by one short sentence listing exclusions. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 5 parameters, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description gives a solid overview: it names the endpoint, scope (workflow-level), and boundaries (no paid execution). It does not mention what the response contains, but for a read-only cost-estimate tool, the purpose and constraints are sufficiently clear. Minor gap: no mention of return format, which the schema doesn't cover either.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description doesn't attempt to describe individual parameters, but the schema already provides detailed semantics for each (e.g., 'Optional local STC planning budget. Not sent to the API.'). The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'calls GET /v1/cost-estimate for workflow-level budgeting only.' It distinguishes the tool from paid execution by explicitly saying it does not authorize payment or paid endpoint calls, which clarifies its scope even in the absence of sibling tools.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: 'Public/free planning tool' and 'workflow-level budgeting only.' It also gives an explicit exclusion: 'does not authorize paid execution, payment, x402, wallet use, or paid endpoint calls,' effectively telling the agent this is for planning, not execution. While no named alternatives exist, the boundary is well-defined.

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