Get API pricing and rate limit information
Returns current API pricing tiers, monthly call limits, and (if authenticated) your current month's usage. Use this to understand costs before making API calls.
200: Successful Response (Success Response) Content-Type: application/json
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It correctly indicates a read operation (returns data, no side effects) and notes conditional behavior based on authentication. However, it does not describe exactly what happens when unauthenticated or disclose other behavioral traits like latency or rate limits. It is adequate but lacks full transparency.
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 concise with two sentences and a response code header. It is front-loaded with the purpose and return content. The 'Responses' section adds minimal value but does not bloat the text. Every sentence serves a purpose, making it appropriately sized.
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 no output schema and zero parameters, the description explains what the tool returns and when to use it. However, it does not detail the structure of pricing tiers or call limits in the response, leaving the agent to infer the format. While sufficient for basic usage, a more complete description would outline the JSON fields returned.
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 has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per guidelines, the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details, and it does not attempt to, so a score of 4 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'API pricing and rate limit information', specifying the returned data including pricing tiers, call limits, and optionally current usage. It distinguishes itself from all sibling tools, which focus on courses, frameworks, and controls.
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?
Explicitly states 'Use this to understand costs before making API calls', which provides clear context for when to invoke the tool. It does not explicitly exclude scenarios or name alternatives, but given no sibling tool with overlapping purpose, this is acceptable and clear.
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.
Multiple tools cover overlapping crosswalk and coverage territory: agent_coverage_crosswalk, agent_coverage_report, agent_cross_framework_map, agent_crosswalk_pair, and agent_combined_coverage could all be chosen for similar questions. The near-duplicate agent_get_framework_controls and agent_get_framework_controls_by_name also creates avoidable ambiguity.
All tools share the agent_ prefix and snake_case style, but the grammatical pattern is mixed: many are verb_noun (agent_buy_crosswalk, agent_search_courses, agent_get_framework), while others are noun phrases or descriptive fragments (agent_capital_by_function, agent_combined_coverage, agent_controls_touched_by, agent_signals_this_week). The convention is readable but not uniform.
27 tools is above the 25-tool threshold and the set feels heavier than necessary because several crosswalk/coverage tools could be consolidated into a smaller family. The broad domain justifies variety, but the count is bloated by overlapping query surfaces and at least one redundant route.
The domain is well covered for a read-only compliance intelligence platform: framework discovery, control lookup, crosswalk analysis, course search, funding-signal exploration, and purchase-link generation are all present. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct way to inspect full control lists for arbitrary domains or retrieve mappings for a specific target control, but agents can generally work around them.
