get_pricingAI Separations pricing: free first separation, API credit packs, monthly plans, and the $179 one-time desktop app — with direct purchase links.
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": "get_pricing"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false, and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral detail beyond that — it discloses that the payload includes direct purchase links — but nothing about freshness, currency, or regional variation.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that names the resource first, then itemizes the offerings. The em-dash detail about purchase links earns its place by signaling an actionable payoff. Slightly list-heavy but no 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?
For a parameterless read-only info tool with no output schema, the description adequately previews the shape of the response (plan tiers, credit packs, one-time app, purchase links). Nothing an agent needs to invoke it is missing.
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 zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. No parameter guidance is needed or missing.
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 names the resource (AI Separations pricing) and enumerates the specific content it returns (free first separation, API credit packs, monthly plans, $179 desktop app). The verb is implicit in the name rather than stated, but an agent can tell this is an informational retrieval tool distinct from buy_credits, check_credits, and estimate_screens.
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?
There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus the transactional siblings buy_credits or the balance-oriented check_credits. 'With direct purchase links' hints it precedes a purchase, but that is left entirely to inference.
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.