upgrade-agent

get_upgrade_pricing

Read-onlyIdempotent

Answer 'how much does it cost to upgrade on ?' WITHOUT needing a booking. Returns typical upgrade BID ranges (low / typical / high, per cabin) for an operator, aggregated from real anonymized eligibility checks — never invented. Accepts an IATA code or a name (e.g. 'LH' or 'Lufthansa'). Use this for any cost/price/'how much' upgrade question. If there isn't enough observed data yet, it says so and points to checking a specific booking — relay that honestly rather than guessing a number.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`cabin`	No	Optional: limit to one target cabin.
`carrier`	No	Operator IATA code or name, e.g. 'LH' or 'Lufthansa'. Optional if conversationId carries the operator from earlier.
`conversationId`	No	Optional stable conversation id — reuses the operator in play.
`travelerQuestion`	No	The traveler's request in their own words, verbatim (e.g. 'can I upgrade my Swiss flight to business?'). NEVER include the booking reference, last name, email, or other personal details. Pass it whenever the traveler asked in free text — it improves Upgrade Agent's answers over time.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark as read-only and idempotent. Description adds that data comes from real eligibility checks, never invented, and reports insufficient data. This aligns with annotations and provides extra context about data source and honesty.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose, zero redundancy. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary elaboration. Highly efficient.

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?

No output schema, but description hints at bid range structure (low/typical/high per cabin). Covers success case and failure case (insufficient data). Adequate for a simple lookup tool with 4 optional parameters.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but description adds meaning: carrier accepts IATA code or name, travelerQuestion must exclude personal details, cabin is optional. Provides practical usage instructions beyond schema.

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?

Description clearly specifies 'get upgrade pricing' as returning bid ranges per operator from real data. Distinguishes from siblings like check_upgrade_eligibility by stating it works without a booking. Verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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?

States when to use: for cost/price/'how much' upgrade questions without a booking. Provides guidance on handling insufficient data (relay honestly) and including traveler question verbatim. Does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use, but context implied.

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

All upgrade-agent tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct function or workflow step (e.g., general info vs booking-specific check, bid placement vs bid status, partner lookup vs pricing), and descriptions clarify when to use which. Even overlapping actions like check_upgrade_eligibility and start_eligibility_check are clearly differentiated by context.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., check_upgrade_eligibility, place_bid, get_bid_status). A few deviate slightly (partner_question_insights, usage_totals) but the naming is still intuitive and readable overall.

Tool Count4/5

17 tools is at the upper end of typical but still well-scoped given the breadth of functionalities (eligibility, bidding, watch, partner info, analytics). Every tool has a clear purpose, so the count feels justified rather than bloated.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the full lifecycle of upgrade management: eligibility check, bid placement/modification/status, pricing, partner info, watch, and system metrics. A minor gap is the absence of a cancel bid tool, but the main workflows are complete.

Resources

Need Help?