Cheapest GPU rentals right now, optionally filtered by minimum VRAM (GB).
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "cheapest_gpu"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| min_vram_gb | No | minimum VRAM in GB, e.g. 80 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool returns 'cheapest GPU rentals right now' and is filterable, but does not disclose return format, sorting, or any limitations (e.g., data sources, pagination). Minimal disclosure beyond basic purpose.
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 description is a single sentence of 11 words, all essential. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, then adds the optional filter. No wasted words.
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 simple tool with one optional parameter, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details about the output (e.g., what fields are returned, whether it's a list, pricing info). Since there is no output schema, the description should compensate but does not.
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 description coverage is 100% for the only parameter. The description adds that the parameter is 'optional' and frames it as a filter ('optionally filtered by'), which clarifies its role beyond the schema's 'minimum VRAM in GB, e.g. 80'. This is a meaningful addition.
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 description clearly states it returns the cheapest GPU rentals and mentions an optional VRAM filter. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_gpus' (which likely lists all GPUs) and 'get_model_prices' (which might give specific model prices).
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 implies usage for finding current cheapest rentals, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_model_prices' or 'search_models'. No when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria are provided.
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.