F
licenseNot graded
qualityC
maintenanceProvides tools to count tokens, estimate API costs, optimize prompts, and compare AI model pricing for multiple LLMs.
88
LLM Abacus
Server Details
Compare up-to-date pricing for 40+ LLMs (incl. Chinese) & estimate cost from tokens. EN/zh.
If you are the author of this connector, you can claim ownership with GitHub, an HTTP challenge, or a DNS record. Claimed connector authors can inspect health checks, view analytics, and manage their listing.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Available Tools
2 toolsestimate_cost评估大模型调用成本ARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
估算一段文本或指定 token 数在某个大模型上的输入侧调用成本，以人民币 ¥ 计价。text_or_tokens 支持两种模式：传自然语言文本时自动估算 token 数（中文按字符、英文按词分别计），传纯数字字符串时直接作为已知 token 数使用。返回：所用估算方法、token 数、按原价计的输入成本；若该模型提供缓存输入价，另给出缓存命中成本、相对原价的节省百分比与倍数差价；末尾附该模型的输入 / 输出 / 缓存输入单价（每百万 tokens）。⚠️ 本工具只计算输入成本，不含输出 token 费用——要估算完整往返成本，需另取输出单价自行相加。
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| model | Yes | 模型 ID 或模糊名称，大小写不敏感（例如 'deepseek-v4-pro'、'gpt-5'、'claude-sonnet'）。匹配规则与 query_model_price 一致；不确定名称时可先调 query_model_price 确认。 | |
| time_band | No | 分时模型的计费时段。缺省为 peak（峰时/最坏价，避免低估）；只有确认调用发生在官方空闲时段时才传 off_peak。 | |
| text_or_tokens | Yes | 二选一：① 待估算的自然语言文本（如一段提示词或整篇文档），工具按中文字符 + 英文词估算 token 数；② 纯数字字符串表示已知 token 数，如 '200000'。注意：整串都是数字时一律按模式 ② 处理——若确实要估算一串数字本身的 token 数，请混入任意非数字字符。 |
TDQS
A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description is highly transparent about behavioral nuances: it covers only input-side costs (not output), explains the token estimation method (Chinese chars vs. English words), and details the edge case for numeric strings. It also clarifies that the output includes method, cost, and optional cache pricing details, without contradicting the annotations.
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 detailed but well-structured, using semicolons to separate distinct aspects (modes, output fields, caveats). It avoids redundancy and keeps each sentence purposeful, though it is somewhat long for a simple utility.
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?
The description is comprehensive for a cost-estimation tool: it covers input handling, estimation methodology, output fields (method, cost, cache savings, unit prices), currency, and the limitation to input costs. It also references the sibling tool for model lookup, making it self-contained in context.
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?
While the schema already provides per-parameter descriptions, the tool description enriches them with concrete examples and clarifies ambiguous semantics (e.g., the dual meaning of text_or_tokens, the default time_band value, and the matching rule for model). This goes beyond the schema baseline, though not by a huge margin.
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 states the tool's function: estimating the input-side cost for a model given text or token count, priced in RMB. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'query_model_price' by focusing on cost estimation rather than price lookup, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly explains when to use this tool (to estimate cost for given text/tokens) and how to use the two input modes. It also references the sibling tool 'query_model_price' for confirming model names, and provides fallback guidance for ambiguous input (e.g., mixing non-digit characters to force text interpretation).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
query_model_price查询模型价格ARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
查询指定大模型（如 GPT-5, Claude, DeepSeek）的最新 API 输入、输出和缓存输入单价（单位：每百万 tokens）。
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| model | Yes | 模型 ID 或模糊名称，大小写不敏感（例如 'gpt-5'、'deepseek-v4'、'claude-sonnet'）。匹配顺序：精确匹配 ID → 精确匹配名称 → 按包含关系匹配 ID → 按包含关系匹配名称，取首个命中。 |
TDQS
A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description is not burdened with safety disclosure. It adds minor context like freshness ('最新') and price components, but does not disclose return format, error behavior, or whether results are cached. This is adequate but not rich.
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?
The description is a single, tightly written sentence that front-loads the action, target, and key details. There is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary explanation.
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 simple read-only lookup with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description conveys what is returned (input/output/cached-input prices) and their unit. It could mention edge cases or the sibling relationship, but the existing content is sufficient for basic invocation.
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?
The input schema covers the single 'model' parameter with detailed matching-order semantics, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description adds unit context (per million tokens) and example models, but does not meaningfully expand on the schema's parameter documentation.
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 uses a specific verb ('查询' / query) and clearly identifies the resource: latest API input, output, and cached-input unit prices for a specified model, with units defined (per million tokens). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'estimate_cost', which focuses on cost estimation rather than actual price lookup.
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 implies its usage context (when you need current API prices for a model) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It fails to reference the sibling tool 'estimate_cost' or clarify when to prefer this over cost estimation, so guidance is present but implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Frequently Asked Questions
Claiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as
io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user or an account that owns the GitHub organization, then choose Claim with GitHub.HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at
/.well-known/glama.jsonon the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Related MCP Connectors
Live LLM API pricing: token prices, comparisons, cheapest-model lookups. No key required.
Compare LLM API pricing, estimate workload costs, and benchmark cloud compute. By OptimNow.
Live LLM API price + status radar across 11 providers, with public per-model price HISTORY.
Live status, API pricing and rate limits for ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Cursor and 42+ AI tools.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceDaily-verified LLM API pricing dataset (44+ models, CN & global) with a hosted MCP server for live price queries and token cost estimation.2CC BY-4.0
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceLive LLM API pricing: current token prices, model comparisons, cheapest-model lookups, and The LLM Price Index for 150+ models across 20+ providers, re-verified daily. No API key required.51MIT
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one estimates input-side costs for text/tokens (a calculation service), the other queries model price listings (a reference/data service). There is no overlap or ambiguity between them; the shared context of model pricing is handled without duplication.
Naming Consistency4/5
Both tools use a verb_noun pattern: 'estimate_cost' and 'query_model_price'. While the pattern is consistent (verb + object), the objects differ in abstraction—'cost' vs. 'model_price'—but this is acceptable. A minor deviation is that 'query_model_price' could be seen as a query action, while 'estimate_cost' is a computation, but the naming style remains coherent.
Tool Count3/5
With only 2 tools, the server is minimal. For a focused utility like LLM cost estimation, 2 tools might be sufficient, but it feels slightly thin because an agent might expect additional related capabilities, such as output-cost estimation or a combined estimate. However, the purpose is clearly narrowed to input-side cost and price queries, so it is borderline.
Completeness2/5
The domain is LLM cost estimation, but the tool surface is incomplete: 'estimate_cost' explicitly warns that it only handles input cost and does not include output tokens, but there is no tool to estimate full round-trip costs or to combine input/output. It lacks a tool to estimate output cost directly, and while 'query_model_price' provides output prices, the agent must manually integrate them. This is a significant gap because the core use case of estimating a complete API call cost is not fully supported.