QuestionPunk

Prolific Study Calc Cost

prolific_study_calc_cost

Read-onlyIdempotent

Quote what a Prolific study would cost, without creating or charging anything. reward is in cents; the result is in currency units: prolificTotalCost, platformFee, prolificTotalCostWithFee, questionpunkCharge (what QuestionPunk credits would pay; 0 when the user's own Prolific account pays), fundingSource ('connected' or 'platform') and currency. Fails if the reward is under $8.00/hour.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "reward": "<reward>",
      "total_available_places": "<total_available_places>",
      "estimated_completion_time": "<estimated_completion_time>"
    },
    "name": "prolific_study_calc_cost"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`reward`	Yes	Reward per participant in cents (1-90000)
`total_available_places`	Yes	Number of participants (1-10000)
`estimated_completion_time`	Yes	Estimated time in minutes (2-360)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive; the description adds real value by fixing units (input in cents, output in currency units), explaining fundingSource semantics and that questionpunkCharge is 0 when the user's own Prolific account pays, and disclosing the minimum-wage validation failure. However, most of the remaining content enumerates return field names, which the output schema already carries.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose and no-side-effect guarantee are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the critical validation rule is stated plainly. The middle stretch is a run-on enumeration of output field names that partially duplicates the output schema and could be trimmed.

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?

For a 3-required-param, fully-described, read-only computation with an output schema, the description covers the essentials: units, funding-source branching, and the failure condition. Only minor redundancy in restating return fields keeps it from being fully tight.

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 coverage is 100% with per-parameter descriptions, ranges and units, so the schema does the heavy lifting. 'reward is in cents' restates the schema verbatim, and the only added semantic — the $8/hour floor — is not tied to a specific parameter. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource ('Quote what a Prolific study would cost') and immediately rules out side effects ('without creating or charging anything'). It is trivially distinguishable from the other prolific_* siblings, which list/get/count rather than compute cost.

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 framing as a quote with no creation or charge clearly signals it is the pre-commitment, safe-to-call estimator, and the $8.00/hour failure threshold warns of a rejection path. It stops short of explicitly naming when an agent should call this versus going straight to study creation, but no competing sibling exists for this job.

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

All QuestionPunk tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?