veriko_get_public_plan_comparisonCompare public plan capacities and prices without an API key to select the right option for your needs.
Compara capacidades y precios públicos sin requerir API key.
| 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 declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description's job is reduced. It adds one useful fact: no API key is needed. This does not contradict annotations, but it adds minimal extra context beyond what structured data already provides.
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 with no wasted words. It states the action, the object, and a key constraint, achieving maximum clarity in minimal space.
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 parameterless tool with rich annotations, the description adequately conveys the tool's purpose and access requirement. While it doesn't specify the output format, the absence of parameters and the comparative nature of the task make the description sufficiently complete 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 schema fully covers them (100% coverage). The description adds no parameter-specific details because there are none to explain, which meets the baseline for a parameterless tool.
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 tool compares public plan capabilities and prices, using a specific verb ('compares') and resource ('public plans'). It differentiates from the sibling 'list' tool by implying comparison rather than listing, though it doesn't explicitly name the alternative.
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 notes that no API key is required, which is a usage condition, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling 'veriko_list_public_plans'. The usage context is implied by the word 'compare' rather than explicitly contrasted with listing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.