arsenkin_estimateValidate one job payload and estimate its cost before preparing it. Free check with no provider call.
Validate one job payload and estimate its cost. Use before arsenkin_prepare; for many payloads use arsenkin_batch_estimate. Cost: free, no provider call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| payload | Yes | ||
| profile | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), but the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the call is free and makes no provider call, which tells the agent there is no billing or external side effect. It stops short of describing validation failure behavior or what a rejected payload looks like.
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?
Three tight clauses with zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the ordering and routing guidance. Every sentence 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?
An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the description covers workflow ordering and cost. However, with 0% parameter coverage and a free-form nested payload object, an agent still lacks the domain framing (what a profile/payload must contain) needed to invoke it correctly on the first try.
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?
Schema coverage is 0% and the schema itself is bare: 'profile' is an undescribed string and 'payload' is an open object with additionalProperties. The description does not explain what a profile is, what fields a payload requires, or how validation errors are reported, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap on a nested-object parameter.
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 pair (validate, estimate) and an explicit scope of 'one job payload', which cleanly separates it from the batch variant. An agent can identify the operation and its counterpart without opening either schema.
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?
Names the preceding tool in the workflow ('Use before arsenkin_prepare') and explicitly routes multi-payload callers to arsenkin_batch_estimate. This is a textbook when-to-use plus alternative-routing statement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.