get_pricingReturn the full paid-offer catalog: every tier with price, currency, interval, checkout URL, what it unlocks, deliverables, and license grant — plus the free layer and premium slug list. Same data as /api/pricing.json.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| offers | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {
+ "offers": {
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {
+ "checkout_url": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "currency": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "id": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "price": {
+ "type": "number"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "id",
+ "price",
+ "currency",
+ "checkout_url"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "offers"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the call is unfiltered (whole catalog, plus free layer and slug list) and it mirrors /api/pricing.json, which lets an agent reason about freshness and parity with a known endpoint.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the catalog scope and followed by the field list and the endpoint equivalence. The field enumeration overlaps somewhat with the existing output schema, which is the only minor waste.
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?
With an output schema present the description needn't document return shapes, and it gives enough to call correctly: no inputs, whole catalog, same as /api/pricing.json. Only the relationship to sibling access/payment tools is left unaddressed.
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 takes no parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and it correctly presents the call as parameter-free.
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 and resource plus scope ('Return the full paid-offer catalog') and enumerates the contents, so an agent knows exactly what this returns. It does not differentiate itself by name from adjacent siblings like get_payment_info or check_access, which keeps it from a 5.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent needing tier/price/license data would pick this. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or pointer to a related sibling such as check_access for entitlement questions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.