Amalgix

Estimate Cost

estimate_cost

Read-onlyIdempotent

FREE: Estimate the x402 USDC cost of any tool or multi-step workflow before paying. Use this before calling paid tools to check pricing.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`tool`	Yes	Tool name to estimate cost for (e.g. "analyze_document", "extract_web", "summarize")
`depth`	No	Workflow depth hint for filing/contract tools. Default: standard
`query`	No	Optional analysis query. Include it for exhaustive/high-output requests so the preview matches the x402 quote.
`workflow`	No	Optional list of tool names for a multi-step workflow. Returns total cost for the full pipeline.
`input_source`	No	Input source hint used to explain cache/download behavior
`content_length`	No	Approximate character count of your input document (used for LLM cost estimation)
`content_sample`	No	Optional short content excerpt for multilingual/high-output pricing hints without sending the full document.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note`	Yes	Pricing explanation
`estimates`	Yes	Cost estimates per tool
`available_tools`	Yes	List of available paid tools

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'FREE' and 'before paying', reinforcing the non-destructive, cost-free nature. No contradictions.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with 'FREE', and every word adds value. Extremely concise with no redundancy.

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?

Given the complexity (7 parameters, output schema present), the description covers the core purpose, usage context, and cost estimation nature. It doesn't detail return format but output schema handles that. Appropriate for the tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with each parameter documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 estimates the x402 USDC cost for any tool or multi-step workflow, distinguishing it from sibling tools which are paid or serve different purposes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly advises to 'Use this before calling paid tools to check pricing', providing clear guidance on when to use. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context is sufficient.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Amalgix tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct domain or action: document analysis, financial filings, contract review, translation, web extraction, summarization, cost estimation, and health check. Overlap is minimal and explicitly disambiguated in descriptions.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., analyze_document, extract_web), making the set predictable and easy to navigate.

Tool Count5/5

With 8 tools, the server is well-scoped for a general-purpose AI toolkit, covering analysis, translation, extraction, summarization, and utilities without excess or deficiency.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers core workflows for document analysis, filings, contracts, translation, web extraction, and summarization. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no tool for editing or managing stored analyses), but the set is complete for its intended purpose.

Resources

Need Help?