audit_pricingDescribe Project Feldspar's paid code audit (security, correctness, maintainability; three independent review passes plus consolidation and manual verification of every reported file:line), its price, turnaround, and the Stripe checkout URL. No arguments.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying exactly what information will be returned—audit scope, process, price, turnaround, and checkout URL—and explicitly notes that the tool takes no arguments.
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?
The description is a single information-dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose before expanding on useful detail. The parenthetical explanation of the audit process is compact, and the closing 'No arguments' prevents an unnecessary invocation attempt. There is no filler or redundancy.
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 zero-argument informational tool, the description adequately covers what the reply will contain: audit scope and process, price, turnaround, and the Stripe checkout URL. No output schema exists, so this content list is the necessary return-value documentation, and it is present.
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?
There are zero parameters, and the schema already reflects that with an empty properties object and additionalProperties:false. The description's 'No arguments' is a helpful confirmation, and with no parameters to document there is little semantic burden for the description to carry.
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 uses an explicit verb, 'Describe', and names a concrete resource: Project Feldspar's paid code audit, including deliverables such as scope, price, turnaround, and Stripe checkout URL. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling scan_repository, which would presumably perform a scan rather than explain pricing and ordering.
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?
The purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer this tool is for obtaining audit details and how to order, but there is no explicit 'use this when you need pricing/checkout information' or any direct contrast with scan_repository. It relies on implication rather than giving conditions or alternatives.
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.
The two tools have completely distinct purposes: scan_repository performs the actual security scan, while audit_pricing provides pricing and checkout information for the paid audit. There is no realistic risk of selecting the wrong tool.
Both tool names follow the same verb_noun snake_case convention: scan_repository and audit_pricing. The pattern is clear and predictable, even though one is an action and the other is more of an informational query.
With exactly two tools, the server feels minimal but not bloated. The core scan tool and the pricing information tool are both useful, but the surface is thin enough to be borderline.
For a stateless free repository security scan service, scan_repository fully covers the core workflow: clone, scan, and return structured findings. audit_pricing provides the related paid offering without leaving a dead end since it includes a checkout URL. No obvious missing operations exist for the stated scope.