parlayapi_get_pricing

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It clearly states no API key is required and that the pricing is public/current. This discloses authentication needs and scope, though it could go further on rate limits or output semantics, but the output schema covers these.

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 punchy sentences with zero filler, front-loaded with the core action, followed by auth context, and a practical usage scenario. 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?

For a zero-parameter, no-auth, public data accessor, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know. The output schema exists for any return-value details, and the usage context clearly tells the agent when to invoke it.

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 is trivially complete. The description adds relevant contextual meaning (no auth, current pricing) beyond the schema, making a baseline 4 appropriate here.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('current public pricing table'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling commerce/pricing operations. The phrase 'public' clarifies scope and positions it as a read-only informational tool.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: when explaining which tier unlocks a workflow before sending a checkout link. This gives clear contextual context even without naming a specific alternative, and distinguishes it from checkout_link.

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