VHGENGINE

by app.railway.up.engine-production-3bdc

pricing

Read-only

The machine-readable price list, with per-mode expected_wait. Free, no auth.

    Every customer operation is zero-priced during private beta. Returns {unit,
    usd_per_credit:0, beta, operations, pricing_modes with zero base/per_hook,
    expected_wait}. Internal provider-credit ceilings are separate from this list.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`beta`	No	Private-beta contract: customer_pricing is the effective free or metered state, standard_request_limit 10, owner_request_limit null, access_code_required true.
`unit`	No	Name of the billing unit (credits).
`operations`	No	Per-operation costs for the non-generate tools.
`credit_packs`	No	Buyable packs when payments are enabled; empty during the free beta.
`signup_grant`	No	Credits a new account starts with.
`expected_wait`	No	Per-mode {p50_ms, p90_ms, source} latency, same as get_estimates.
`pricing_modes`	No	Per mode {base, per_hook, formula, expected_wait}. A generate charge is base + per_hook * hooks_RETURNED.
`usd_per_credit`	No	Cash price per credit; 0 while credits are free.
`payments_enabled`	No	false during the free private beta or when Stripe is not configured; create_checkout then returns payments_disabled.
`low_balance_threshold`	No	Balance at which the credits.low webhook fires.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, which reduces the burden. The description adds valuable context beyond that: it specifies that no authentication is required, that all operations are currently zero-priced, describes the response structure ({unit, usd_per_credit, beta, operations, pricing_modes...}), and notes that internal provider-credit ceilings are separate. This enriches the agent's understanding without contradicting the read-only hint.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is moderately concise and well-structured, containing multiple purposeful sentences that each add information (purpose, auth/free status, beta pricing, response shape, and a caveat about internal ceilings). It is not as tight as a two-sentence ideal, but it avoids redundancy and earns its length for a tool that carries behavioral context.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool has no parameters, a read-only annotation, and an output schema exists, the description fully covers the remaining context: what the list is, its auth requirements, current pricing, the exact return fields, and a caveat about internal ceilings. This is complete for an agent to safely decide to call and interpret the tool.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (the schema is empty). Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies for 0-parameter tools. The description adds no parameter-level detail because none exists, but it does clarify the nature of the returned data, which is the only semantic aspect of interest here.

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 clearly identifies this as 'the machine-readable price list' with a specific scope ('per-mode expected_wait'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like quote or get_estimates by framing itself as the authoritative list rather than a dynamic estimate, and the 'Free, no auth' note further clarifies its role as a safe, public reference.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description provides context about when this tool is appropriate (free, no auth, zero-priced during beta) and hints that it is the canonical price reference. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., quote for specific estimates), leaving the when-to-use guidance somewhat 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 VHGENGINE 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

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource and action, e.g., signup vs. delete_account, create_key vs. revoke_key, generate_hooks vs. score_hook. Even similar tools like generate_hooks and generate_hooks_batch are clearly differentiated by single vs. batch operation.

Naming Consistency5/5

All 32 tools use a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., add_credits, create_checkout, revoke_key, list_outcomes) with no mixing of camelCase or other conventions.

Tool Count4/5

32 tools is slightly above the typical 15-tool range, but the domain is broad (account, keys, webhooks, generation, scoring, jobs, outcomes), and each tool has a specific purpose. No tools seem redundant.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers most lifecycle operations: CRUD for accounts/keys/webhooks, generation/scoring with batch and async variants, outcomes reporting, and auxiliary tools. Missing explicit delete for hooks (expire automatically) and some update operations, but no critical gaps.

Resources

Need Help?