Paid ($0.10, x402/USDC). Same batch model status lookup as model_status_batch: one entry per input id plus any_action_needed. Pay with x402 if you hold USDC; use model_status_batch to pay by card or other MPP methods.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| model_ids | Yes | the model ids to look up, e.g. a CI pipeline's pinned model set |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are empty, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the cost ($0.10), the payment currency (x402/USDC), and the exact return structure (one entry per input id plus any_action_needed). While it doesn't mention read-only status or potential side effects, for a 'lookup' tool the disclosed behaviors are sufficient for an agent to understand the call's implications.
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 efficient sentences that front-load the cost and functional equivalence, then provide clear payment alternative. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.
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 single-parameter batch lookup without an output schema, the description fully covers the essential context: cost, payment route, output shape, and when to choose the sibling tool. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.
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 schema already describes the only parameter (model_ids) at 100% coverage. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond a reference to the sibling tool's behavior. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage; there's nothing to compensate for.
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 tool performs a 'batch model status lookup' and specifies the output shape ('one entry per input id plus any_action_needed'). It also distinguishes from the sibling model_status_batch by payment method, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
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 says when to use this tool ('if you hold USDC') and when to use the alternative ('use model_status_batch to pay by card or other MPP methods'). This is clear, actionable guidance with a named sibling alternative.
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.