Skip to main content
Glama

optionality-mcp

by io.github.lonniev

optionality_check_price

Preview the effective cost of a tool call.

Shows the base cost and any constraint effects (discounts, free trials, surge pricing). Free — no credits required.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
npubNo
tool_idYesEither the tool's UUID (from the pricing model) or a bare capability string (e.g. ``"deal_scenario"``). FE callers usually have the capability name; this resolves both so the FE doesn't need to derive UUIDs locally.
dpop_tokenNo
tool_kwargsNoOptional JSON object with tool call parameters for ad valorem / categorical-multiplier pricing preview (e.g. '{"amount_sats": 5000}' or '{"difficulty": "sovereign", "mode": "live"}').

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description discloses that the tool is free ('no credits required'), which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention authentication requirements, side effects, or any constraints beyond cost. With no annotations to fall back on, this leaves gaps.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences clearly stating purpose and output details. No wasted words, front-loaded with the main action.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Covers the tool's purpose and output (base cost, constraint effects). With an output schema present, return values are handled. However, it lacks prerequisites, parameter hints, and does not address the context of when the tool is applicable (e.g., valid tools). Adequate but with noticeable gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description adds no information about any of the 4 parameters. Schema description coverage is only 50% (tool_id and tool_kwargs have descriptions), but the description does not compensate for the undocumented parameters (npub, dpop_token). The agent must rely solely on the schema, which is incomplete.

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 'Preview the effective cost of a tool call' with a specific verb (Preview) and resource (cost of a tool call). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on pricing, while siblings cover account statements, balances, profiles, etc.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings include other 'check' tools (e.g., optionality_check_balance, optionality_check_payment) with overlapping purposes, but the description does not differentiate them or offer usage conditions.

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

All optionality-mcp 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

B3.1/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

There is substantial overlap and confusion between multiple sets of tools. For example, `optionality_get_operator_onboarding_status` and `optionality_get_patron_onboarding_status` serve different identities but have a similar purpose that could be confusing. More critically, there are generic-named tools like `optionality_receive_credentials` and `optionality_receive_npub_proof` that both drain a relay mailbox in a very similar way, distinguished primarily by the type of token they return. The presence of both `optionality_session_status` and `optionality_service_status` is a major point of ambiguity, as both seem to check the health and configuration of the operator.

Naming Consistency4/5

The naming convention is highly consistent, using a snake_case, verb_noun pattern (e.g., `list_journal`, `delete_journal`). The prefix `optionality_` is applied to all tools. The verb 'get' and 'list' are used predictably. Minor point deduction for a few outliers like `optionality_deal_scenario` and `optionality_judge_trade` which are domain-specific verbs that don't perfectly fit the CRUD pattern but are still clear in context.

Tool Count1/5

With 71 tools, this server is severely over-staffed. This indicates poor separation of concerns, likely bundling multiple distinct domains or services into a single surface. A tool count this high dramatically increases cognitive load and API surface area, making it difficult for an agent to find the correct tool.

Completeness3/5

The tool surface covers an enormous amount of functionality, including imaginative ownership-proof flows via Nostr DMs. However, the `check_balance`/`purchase_credits` flow appears incomplete without a `refund_credits` tool for operator support scenarios. While the server has a `restore_credits` tool, it requires authentication. Overall, the surface is individually creative but organizationally incoherent.

Resources