Verdix prices per tier

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context: 'Nothing is signed or paid' and 'Free', which explains the lack of side effects and cost. This goes beyond the annotation flags and clarifies user expectations, though it doesn't cover potential rate limits or response format details.

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, information-dense sentence. It front-loads 'Free' and 'Current Verdix price per tier', then lists the specific return values and closes with a behavioral note. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description fully covers what an agent needs: the purpose, the return contents, and the absence of side effects. The sibling tool is distinct, and no further context is necessary for correct 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and it does not attempt to; it purely describes the return data, which is appropriate for a no-argument getter.

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 the verb 'get', the resource 'pricing', and enumerates the exact data returned: price per tier, payment recipient, max price per call, and wallet configuration. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'check_address_risk' implicitly by focusing on pricing rather than risk assessment.

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 (when pricing or payment details are needed) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion conditions. The sibling 'check_address_risk' is distinct enough that the agent can infer when to use which, but the guidance is not fully explicit.

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