veriko_get_public_plan_comparisonCompare public plan capabilities and pricing without an API key, helping you evaluate SPEI transfer options before integration.
Compara capacidades y precios públicos sin requerir clave de API.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description contributes one useful behavioral detail ('sin requerir clave de API'), but does not disclose return format, rate limits, or other traits beyond what annotations provide.
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, front-loaded sentence that states the core action and resource with no filler. Every word earns its place.
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?
For a zero-parameter, read-only comparison tool with rich annotations, the description is largely sufficient: it states purpose and no-auth access. The main gap is not explaining how it relates to the sibling list tool, which would help an agent choose between them.
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 accepts zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to describe and the baseline is 4. The description appropriately adds no parameter details because none exist.
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 specific verb ('Comprara') and resource ('capacidades y precios públicos'), making the comparison purpose clear. Does not name or differentiate from the sibling tool veriko_list_public_plans, so sibling disambiguation is absent.
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?
Adds the context that no API key is required, which implies unauthenticated public use. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over veriko_list_public_plans or state any exclusions, leaving usage to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.