Get a 3D printing price quote

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the exact cost ($0.005 USDC on Base), payment method (x402), and non-payment behavior (returns a challenge). It also emphasizes 'not an estimate' to set accuracy expectations. Some error handling details are missing, but core behavioral traits are well covered.

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 two sentences deliver all critical information efficiently. The paid status is front-loaded, followed by accuracy claim, outputs, input actions, and the two payment states. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.

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 no output schema and 6 parameters, the description explains both call modes (unpaid challenge and paid result), expected outputs (time, grams, quote), and supported input formats. It omits PLY from the input list (though schema allows it) and doesn't detail the exact response structure, but for a quote tool this is adequate.

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 schema already covers all 6 parameters (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context: automatic volume discounts relate to quantity, material affects material + machine time pricing, and x_payment determines whether a challenge or real result is returned. This goes beyond the schema's individual field descriptions.

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 title and description clearly state the tool provides a 3D printing price quote. It specifies that it uses a real OrcaSlicer slice (not an estimate) and lists the exact outputs: print time, filament grams, and a priced quote. This distinguishes it from siblings like check_printability or slice_model.

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 explains the payment workflow: omit x_payment to receive a challenge, include it to settle and get the result. It also tells the user to upload a model. It doesn't explicitly compare to sibling tools, but the purpose is distinct enough that usage context is clear.

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