Стоимость Telegram Stars

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

No annotations are provided, so the description itself must indicate behavior. 'Возвращает стоимость' clearly communicates a query-like, read-oriented operation that returns cost and minimum quantity. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, side-effect guarantees, rate limits, or how the service responds on invalid parameters.

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 concise sentence with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the main return value and stays appropriately short for a straightforward price-query tool.

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?

The tool is simpleable and the description gives the core return information, but there is no output schema and no mention of currency, parameter optionality, or usage context. Given the lack of annotations.Empty outcome, the description is minimally viable but leaves some room for correct invocation to be inferred.

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 descriptions already cover both parameters (quantity and username) with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra meaning about how these parameters affect pricing or whether they are optional, despite both being non-required according to the schema.

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 that the tool returns the purchase cost of Telegram Stars and the minimum allowable quantity. It includes a specific verb and resource, and the result type is obvious. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling order/price tools, but the 'stars price' wording makes the purpose sufficiently identifiable.

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?

There is no guidance about when to call this tool, e.g., before creating a star order, or how to choose it over related siblings like wata_dg_stars_order_create or wata_dg_steam_price. The agent must infer usage solely from the name and context.

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