estimate_area_downloadEstimate the credit cost and account balance impact of downloading daily climate rasters clipped to a defined area before requesting the data.
Credit cost of daily rasters clipped to an area (max 3,000 km²), and the account balance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end | Yes | YYYY-MM-DD | |
| bbox | No | [west, south, east, north] | |
| start | Yes | YYYY-MM-DD | |
| area_wkt | No | Polygon in WKT, lon lat (from find_area) | |
| variables | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description is not carrying the safety burden. It does add real behavioral facts beyond the annotations: the 3,000 km² area ceiling and the fact that the account balance is returned alongside the cost. It does not say what happens on exceeding the limit or whether estimation commits anything.
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 compact sentence with no filler, and the cost-plus-area scoping is front-loaded. It reads as a noun-phrase fragment rather than a full clause, which slightly weakens the leading statement but wastes nothing.
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 correctly names the two return values. However, for a 5-parameter tool it leaves the area-selection rules (bbox vs WKT vs neither), the meaning of variables, and the failure mode above 3,000 km² unexplained, which is not enough for confident invocation.
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 coverage is 80%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing on the bbox vs area_wkt choice (both default null, no stated mutual exclusivity or requirement) and nothing on the variables enum, leaving the biggest selection ambiguity to the schema.
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 concrete verb-resource pair (credit cost estimate for daily rasters clipped to an area) and adds the account-balance return. It is clearly separable from request_area_download, but it never names that sibling, so differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.
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: an agent can guess this is the pre-flight check before request_area_download, but no alternative is named and no when/when-not condition is stated. The 3,000 km² cap hints at a boundary but is framed as a limit, not as selection guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.