get_price

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the return values (public_prices[] always, contracted_prices[], effective_price, auth_available=true when auth exists) but does not mention side effects, rate limits, error handling, or other behaviors. It is partially transparent but lacks depth.

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 lengthy but well-organized with sections for each domain and bullet-style field requirements. It includes multiple examples. While it could be slightly more concise, the complexity of the tool justifies the length, and the structure aids readability.

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 the tool's complexity and the existence of an output schema (so return details need not be in description), the description is thorough. It covers all domains, references a sibling tool (describe_catalog) for additional guidance, and provides concrete examples that an agent can copy. The context is sufficient 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 input schema defines only a generic spec object with additionalProperties: true, providing zero semantic guidance. The description compensates fully by detailing domain-specific required fields (e.g., for COMPUTE, STORAGE, DATABASE, AI, etc.) with concrete key-value pairs and examples, massively adding value beyond 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 defines get_price as a unified pricing tool that returns public catalog rates and contracted/effective prices. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like compare_prices and find_cheapest_region by focusing on precise pricing for specific configurations and requiring a spec dict with provider, domain, and region.

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 explicitly states minimum required fields (provider, domain, region) and that domain-specific fields are needed, directing users to describe_catalog for the complete list. It provides multiple examples. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives, though the examples and context imply its specific purpose.

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