get_modelGet full details for one OpenRouter model by id — normalized $/1M pricing (prompt, completion, plus per-request/image/web-search costs), context window, modality, supported parameters, tokenizer, knowledge cutoff. e.g. id "anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5". Keyless.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Exact model id, e.g. "anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5", "openai/gpt-4o", "google/gemini-2.5-pro". |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, making the safety profile clear. The description adds value by noting that the tool is 'Keyless' (no authentication required) and listing the data returned, which goes beyond 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?
Description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes key details without wasted words. Every part earns its place.
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?
Given the simple input schema (one parameter) and no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose, return fields, and the keyless nature. It is complete for an agent to understand and use the tool.
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 coverage is 100%, so the parameter is well-documented in the schema. The description provides an example and the 'Keyless' note, but adds minimal meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
Description clearly states it retrieves full details for one OpenRouter model by id, listing specific fields (pricing, context window, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_models and compare_models.
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?
Description implies usage for fetching details of a single model, and provides an example. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools like list_models for overviews or compare_models for comparisons.
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.
Several tools overlap in purpose: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical today, and the polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, bet_research, and polymarket_fill_risk tools all orbit market-opportunity analysis from slightly different angles. The descriptions are unusually detailed and often say when to prefer one tool over another, but an agent must read carefully to avoid misselection.
Names are consistently snake_case and mostly follow a verb_noun pattern (list_models, get_model, resolve_entity, validate_claim, scan_dependency), with predictable domain prefixes like polymarket_* and pipeworx_*. A few noun-first names like entity_profile, bet_research, and ai_visibility_check deviate slightly, but the overall convention is readable and coherent.
34 tools is well into the 'too many' range, especially for a server named Openrouter that actually spans several unrelated domains: model catalog, Pipeworx data retrieval, Polymarket analysis, memory, subscriptions, and website tooling. Many individual tools are justified, but the set is overstuffed and would be better split into focused servers.
Each sub-domain is reasonably covered: model catalog has list/get/compare, memory has remember/recall/forget, subscriptions have subscribe/list/unsubscribe/recent_alerts, and Pipeworx querying has multiple modes plus discovery. However, a server named Openrouter exposes no way to actually run completions or route requests through OpenRouter, and the unrelated bundled domains make the overall surface feel scattered rather than complete.