get_prices

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: read-only, free, no API key, and the critical caveat that `available: false` means listed-but-not-buyable and must not be offered. It also discloses that returned prices are indicative only, with binding pricing coming from create_quote, and that the table has an expiry.

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?

One dense paragraph, but front-loaded with the highest-value facts (read-only, free, no key) and each clause earns its place by describing return fields or usage constraints. It is long for a two-parameter read tool, though not padded.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must supply the return shape and safety profile — and it does, covering the price dimensions, the available flag semantics, the validity window, and the indicative-vs-binding distinction. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool correctly.

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 100% and both parameters carry enum values with descriptions (network default, resource restriction), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description explains what filtering by resource yields and clarifies tier semantics, but adds no parameter-specific syntax or default behavior beyond what the schema already states.

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 states a precise verb and resource — 'Returns the current rental price table' — and enumerates exactly what the table contains (resource x tier, SUN per unit, min/max, available flag, validity window). That scope implicitly separates it from historical siblings like get_price_history and get_market, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger ('Call it before telling a user a price') and names the alternative path for the stronger need ('a binding price comes from create_quote'). When-to-use and the escalation route are both stated, not inferred.

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