Loading ToolBench
Multi-cloud cost report, anomaly detection, and FOCUS export
Single tool 'cloudbill_scan' has a basic description (67 chars) but critically lacks parameter descriptions and output schema documentation. The input schema defines only 'target' as a string with minimal context. No error handling guidance, no output structure documented, and no indication of what 'findings' or 'score' fields contain. The tool description mentions 'Multi-cloud cost report, anomaly detection, and FOCUS export' but the actual implementation (visible in ports/) appears to scan for code markers (TODO, FIXME, XXX), a significant mismatch between stated purpose and implementation. No parameter constraints, no guidance on valid target formats, and no documentation of return structure.
Multi-cloud cost report, anomaly detection, and FOCUS export. Returns JSON findings.
Parameter 'target' lacks description. LLM cannot infer whether it expects a file path, directory, cloud account ID, or resource identifier. Description must specify format and valid inputs.
Output schema not documented. Tool returns JSON with 'findings' and 'score' fields, but LLM has no visibility into the structure of findings (are they objects? arrays? what fields?). This prevents downstream tool composition and forces LLM to guess.
Stated purpose ('Multi-cloud cost report, anomaly detection, and FOCUS export') does not match implementation (scans for code markers TODO/FIXME/XXX in files). This is a critical mismatch that will cause LLM to misuse the tool.
No error handling guidance. Tool provides no documentation of failure modes, invalid inputs, or recovery steps. LLM cannot self-correct on errors.
| Scored | Grade | Overall | Spec posture | Rubric |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-23 | F | 41 | 2026-07-28+ | v2 |
Tool name 'cloudbill_scan' is generic and does not clearly convey action. Verb-noun pattern is present but 'scan' is vague, scan for what? Recommend 'scan_code_markers' or 'detect_code_issues' to match actual behavior.