tokportal_get_credit_costs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description 'Get credit pricing' adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotations provide—it aligns with them but does not add value. For a read operation, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 phrase 'Get credit pricing.' It is maximally concise with no extraneous words. Every word serves the purpose of stating the tool's functionality. There is no excess to trim.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and is a simple read operation with clear annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), the description 'Get credit pricing' is sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke it correctly. It is complete within its simple context, though a bit more detail on what 'credit pricing' includes (e.g., per-unit costs, tiered pricing) could improve completeness slightly.

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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage (since there are no parameters to describe). The description adds no parameter-level information because none is needed. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description meets that expectation by not requiring additional parameter semantics.

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 'Get credit pricing' clearly indicates a read operation to retrieve credit pricing information. The verb 'Get' and resource 'credit pricing' are specific, and it distinguishes itself from siblings like tokportal_get_credit_balance (which likely returns the balance) and tokportal_list_credit_transactions (which lists transactions).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among siblings, there are related tools like tokportal_get_credit_balance and tokportal_list_credit_transactions, but the description does not differentiate usage contexts or mention any prerequisites. The purpose is implied through the name and description, but explicit guidelines are absent.

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