Skip to main content
Glama

Amalgix

by io.github.Amalgix-io

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
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toolYesTool name to estimate cost for (e.g. "analyze_document", "extract_web", "summarize")
depthNoWorkflow depth hint for filing/contract tools. Default: standard
queryNoOptional analysis query. Include it for exhaustive/high-output requests so the preview matches the x402 quote.
workflowNoOptional list of tool names for a multi-step workflow. Returns total cost for the full pipeline.
input_sourceNoInput source hint used to explain cache/download behavior
content_lengthNoApproximate character count of your input document (used for LLM cost estimation)
content_sampleNoOptional short content excerpt for multilingual/high-output pricing hints without sending the full document.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noteYesPricing explanation
estimatesYesCost estimates per tool
available_toolsYesList 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds beyond this by stating 'FREE' and 'before paying,' clarifying that the tool is a non-executing pre-payment estimate. This is valuable context not present in annotations, though it could go further by mentioning that no actual tool execution occurs.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with 'FREE,' and every word earns its place. It states the core function and when to use it without redundancy or padding.

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 complex 7-parameter schema, high coverage, output schema, and annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It covers purpose, usage context, and the free nature. It doesn't explain the return format, but the presence of an output schema mitigates that omission.

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%, so every parameter already has a description. The description itself does not add parameter-level detail beyond implying the 'tool' and 'workflow' parameters fit the 'any tool or multi-step workflow' wording. Per the baseline rule for high coverage, a 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's purpose: to estimate the x402 USDC cost of any tool or multi-step workflow before paying. It uses a specific verb ('estimate') and resource ('x402 USDC cost'), and distinguishes itself from analytical or processing siblings like analyze_document or summarize by focusing on pricing.

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 says 'Use this before calling paid tools to check pricing,' providing clear context for when to use it. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but given no other pricing tool exists among siblings, this is sufficient. A slightly higher score would require explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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

All Amalgix toolsInspect
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
Disambiguation4/5

Each tool targets a clearly distinct operation: general analysis, public filing analysis, contract risk, summarization, web extraction, translation, cost estimation, and health check. While analyze_document could overlap with specialized tools, the descriptions provide clear guidance to use the specialized tools for known domains.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (analyze_document, estimate_cost, extract_web, review_contract_risks). Minor deviations include the bare verb 'summarize' and the noun-like 'health_check', and 'delegate_bulk_translate' uses an unusual verb prefix.

Tool Count5/5

8 tools is well within the typical 3-15 range, and each tool serves a distinct function that justifies its inclusion, including supporting utilities for cost estimation and health checks.

Completeness4/5

The toolset covers general analysis, specialized financial/contract analysis, summarization, web extraction, and translation. It lacks some potential operations like batch analysis or language listing, but the core workflows are supported without obvious dead ends.

Resources