get_pricingReturn Thmenu's commercial model as structured facts: free forever, every feature included, no subscription and no trial; the only charge is a platform fee in basis points on payment volume processed through Thmenu (the payment processor's own fee is separate); cash or external payments carry no Thmenu fee. Generated from the code that charges it — safe to cache.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that the facts are generated from the charging code and safe to cache, which is useful beyond the annotations, but it does not detail auth or rate limits.
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?
Front-loads the purpose and packs the return content into two efficient sentences. The dense semicolon list is justified by the lack of an output schema.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description must cover return values; it enumerates the pricing facts (free, no subscription, platform fee, cash/no fee). This is sufficient for the tool's scope, though it could clarify the structured format.
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?
Input schema has zero parameters, so parameter semantics baseline is 4. There is no parameter information to add.
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?
States a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('Thmenu's commercial model') and distinguishes itself from every sibling, none of which returns pricing. The description is immediately actionable for tool selection.
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?
No explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternatives. The closest is 'safe to cache', which is behavioral, not a routing rule. An agent must infer that this should be called for pricing/fee questions.
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.