Top MCP tools by cost over the past N days. Answers "what is the most expensive thing my agents do" — useful before tightening prompts or swapping a server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | Lookback window in days. Defaults to 7. | |
| limit | No | Maximum entries to return. Defaults to 10. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | Yes | ||
| tools | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, making safety clear. The description adds context about answering a specific question, but no behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.
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?
Two sentences: one states purpose clearly, the other adds context. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.
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?
Given output schema exists and annotations cover safety, description is complete for a simple list tool. Lacks explicit mention of ordering direction (descending by cost implied).
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in schema. Description adds no additional meaning beyond schema, earning baseline 3.
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?
Clearly states it lists top MCP tools by cost over N days, answering a specific question. Distinguishes from sibling cost tools by focusing on ranking tools by cost.
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?
Provides a concrete use case ('useful before tightening prompts or swapping a server'), but does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives. Sibling names provide some context.
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.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: cost estimation, session details, daily cost, monthly usage, session listing, top tools, and demo. No two tools overlap in functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., estimate_cost, get_session_details, list_top_tools). 'try_demo' also fits the pattern.
Seven tools is an appropriate number for a cost monitoring server, covering estimation, session details, daily/monthly usage, and top tools without being overwhelming.
The tool set covers core cost monitoring needs: estimation, session drill-down, daily/monthly totals, and top tools. Minor gaps like historical trends or budget management are missing but not critical for the stated purpose.