Get pricing for a specific model by ID. No payment required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| modelId | Yes | The AI model database ID from list_models. A numeric string ("16") is accepted and coerced. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / modelId / descriptionPrevious value: -"The AI model database ID"New value: +"The AI model database ID from list_models. A numeric string (\"16\") is accepted and coerced."Input schema / properties / modelId / typePrevious value: -"number"New value: +[
+ "number",
+ "string"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds a valuable behavioral note: 'No payment required.' This goes beyond the safety profile, clarifying the endpoint will not incur a charge. It does not contradict annotations.
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 short sentences, both purposeful: the first states the core operation, the second provides a useful billing caveat. No filler words or redundancy. Front-loaded with the verb and object.
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 simple read-only, idempotent lookup with one fully documented parameter, the description notably covers the operation and an important behavioral caveat. The lack of return-format information is acceptable given the tool's simple nature and absence of an output schema.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the description does not add material meaning beyond 'by ID.' The schema already explains the modelId comes from list_models and that numeric strings are accepted. The description adds no new semantic detail.
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 states a clear action ('Get pricing') and resource ('for a specific model by ID'). It is distinct from sibling tools like get_cost_estimate, though it does not explicitly name alternatives to aid disambiguation.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_models or get_cost_estimate. It implies usage through 'by ID' but provides no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative routing. 'No payment required' does not explain when to choose this.
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.