Venice Billing Usage Analytics

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

Annotations already establish this as a safe, idempotent read, but the description adds genuinely new operational facts: a 10-minute cache window, an ADMIN-key requirement that inference keys cannot satisfy, and the exclusion of x402 wallet auth. Those are real behavioral traits an agent cannot derive from the schema or 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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information (purpose, caching, parameter rule, auth), with the core purpose front-loaded. Slightly bloated by the closing 'does not accept x402 wallet auth' clause, but nothing is wasted or redundant.

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 does a fair job sketching the response shape ('aggregated usage by date, model, and API key') and covers caching and auth constraints. It stops short of describing metrics returned (tokens, cost) or any pagination, which keeps it from being fully self-sufficient for an analytics endpoint.

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 both the mutual exclusivity of lookback vs. start_date/end_date and the YYYY-MM-DD format are already documented in the schema. The description only restates the either/or rule, adding no format, default, or boundary detail beyond it. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

It names a specific verb (get) and resource (aggregated usage) and scopes it to date/model/API key dimensions, so the agent knows exactly what comes back. However, it never differentiates from the closely named sibling venice_billing_usage_history, leaving the agent to guess which billing usage tool to pick.

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 a clear selection rule for parameters ('Choose either lookback or a complete start/end date range') and states the access condition (ADMIN key). But it offers no guidance on when to prefer this tool over venice_billing_usage_history or venice_billing_balance, which is the main routing decision an agent faces here.

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