LimitReceipts by aiw3b

plan_fit

Rank coding-agent plans from LimitReceipts. tier=free needs no payment and returns one plan with source_url and verified_date. If audience is omitted, tier=free defaults it to individual and tier=full defaults it to any. tier=full requires x402; this server returns the payment requirements and does not sign or pay.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "usage": "<usage>"
    },
    "name": "plan_fit"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`tier`	No	free returns one plan. full requires x402 payment.
`type`	No	Tool kind filter. cli matches cli or both. editor matches editor or both.
`limit`	No	Full tier only. Default 5, max 20.
`usage`	Yes	Required usage band.
`budget`	No	Optional max monthly USD.
`models`	No	Optional comma-separated substrings matched against plan models.
`audience`	No	Optional filter. Omitted on tier=free defaults to individual. Omitted on tier=full defaults to any. Explicit individual, team, or any is honoured on both tiers.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses that free tier is unauthenticated and returns a single plan with source_url and verified_date, and critically that full tier returns x402 payment requirements rather than signing or paying. It stops short of describing full-tier return content or error behavior, so not a 5.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and return shape, then payment and default behavior. The audience-default sentence duplicates the schema's own text, which is the only wasted space.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a 7-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool this is reasonable but incomplete: the required 'usage' parameter and the filter parameters (type, limit, models, budget) are never explained, and full-tier return shape beyond payment requirements is unspecified.

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 description coverage is 100%, including the audience default rules the description restates almost verbatim. Some added meaning exists in tying tier to payment flow, but the per-parameter semantics (usage, type, limit, models, budget) are largely left to the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('Rank coding-agent plans from LimitReceipts') and describes what each tier returns. It never names or contrasts with the sibling plan_fit_info, so an agent must infer the split from the names alone, which keeps it off a 5.

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 tier semantics ('free needs no payment', 'full requires x402') implicitly guide tier selection, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites beyond payment, and no guidance on choosing among the filters (type, models, budget) or on the sibling info tool.

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

All LimitReceipts by aiw3b 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?