Tulina

oto_admin_model_spend

[platform admin] Reconciles one UTC day (default: yesterday), in TOKENS, of what ANTHROPIC counted on this instance's platform anthropic keys — its own usage report — against what the units budget settled for model calls on the platform rung (anthropic.messages:<model>). Per unit (input, output, cache write, cache read): per platform key its Anthropic tokens, the totals, gap_tokens (positive = tokens no settlement carries), by_model (the same per model, snapshot date dropped), other_keys (tokens on any other key of the Anthropic organization: unmetered by construction; null id = Console) and unmatched_platform_rows. No tariff, no money. Platform keys are matched to Anthropic's by partial_key_hint. Cannot attribute a gap to an org; tenant keys are out of scope. Read-only.

Tool call template

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": "oto_admin_model_spend"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`day`	No	The UTC day to reconcile (YYYY-MM-DD). Omitted = yesterday — Anthropic's report is final a few minutes after the day ends.
`_org`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

No schema history has been recorded yet.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely meets it: it declares read-only behavior, says no monetary values are returned, describes how platform keys are matched (`partial_key_hint`), defines the sign convention of `gap_tokens`, explains what `other_keys` contains (unmetered by construction, null id = Console), and admits a hard limitation (gaps cannot be attributed to an org).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Content density is high with no obvious filler, but the core operation is delivered as one very long sentence loaded with internal jargon (`anthropic.messages:<model>`, "platform rung", "unmetered by construction") before any caveats. Structure is closer to a spec dump than a front-loaded summary.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a complex, non-obvious reconciliation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies output field meanings, matching logic, and failure modes. The remaining gaps are the role/permission requirement (only implied by "[platform admin]") and the `_org` parameter.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 50%: `day` is documented in the schema and the description reinforces its semantics (one UTC day, default yesterday). `_org` has no explanation in either place, though it appears to be a standard cross-cutting scope parameter. The description adds some meaning but does not compensate for the undocumented parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a concrete operation and target: reconciling one UTC day of Anthropic-counted tokens against what the units budget settled for `anthropic.messages:<model>` calls. It bounds the scope explicitly ("in TOKENS", "No tariff, no money", "tenant keys are out of scope"), which separates it from adjacent admin tools such as balances or monitoring.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It states the default window (yesterday) and why that default is safe, and it rules scope in/out ("tenant keys are out of scope", "Cannot attribute a gap to an org"). It does not name a sibling tool for the adjacent question of money or per-tenant spend, so the routing is implied rather than explicit.

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

All Tulina tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?