ledger_pricingList Privi Ledger tools, what each costs, and how to get an organization key.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "ledger_pricing"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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 readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and scope are covered structurally. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the response is a catalog of tools with their costs plus instructions for obtaining an organization key, which tells the agent this is the pricing/onboarding resource rather than a data-access tool.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that names the three things the call returns (tool list, costs, org-key guidance) with no filler or redundancy.
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?
With no parameters and an output schema present, the description only needs to say what the call is for and what category of information it returns, which it does. The absence of any explicit when-to-use framing is the only remaining gap for this simple zero-arg lookup.
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 takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4; there is no argument surface for the description to explain or for the schema to leave ambiguous.
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?
Specific verb ("List") plus a clearly bounded resource (Privi Ledger tools with pricing and org-key guidance). No sibling covers pricing or onboarding, so the agent can route here without inspecting other schemas, though the description never explicitly contrasts itself with e.g. ledger_list_streams.
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?
Usage is implied by the content (call this to find out what the Ledger tools cost and how to obtain an organization key), which effectively signals an onboarding/pricing lookup. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no exclusion telling the agent not to use it for cataloging streams or receipts.
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.