LLM Pricing

register_price_alert

Register a webhook URL to receive notifications when a model's price changes by more than a specified percentage. Optionally scope the alert to a specific provider or model. Returns the alert ID and a one-time alert_token needed to view or delete it via manage_price_alert.

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": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "register_price_alert"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	Yes	Public https webhook URL to POST when the alert fires (no private, internal or loopback hosts; redirects are not followed)
`provider`	No	Limit to a specific provider (e.g. 'openai'). Omit for all.
`model_name`	No	Limit to a specific model name. Omit for all models.
`threshold_pct`	No	Minimum absolute % price change to trigger the alert (default: 5.0)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 30, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / url / description

Previous value: -"Webhook URL to POST when the alert fires"New value: +"Public https webhook URL to POST when the alert fires (no private, internal or loopback hosts; redirects are not followed)"

First observedOct 19, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses that the URL receives a POST, that registration yields an alert ID plus a one-time alert_token, and that the token is required to manage the alert afterward. It omits auth requirements, duplicate-registration behavior, and rate limits, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences: purpose, optional scoping, then return value and lifecycle pointer. No filler, but the scoping sentence largely restates schema fields and could have been folded into the first to tighten the definition.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming both return values (alert ID and one-time alert_token) and where they are consumed. For a four-parameter creation tool with fully documented parameters, only missing auth/duplicate-handling context keeps it from complete.

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 description coverage is 100% and already covers the webhook constraints, provider/model scoping, and the threshold default. The description only paraphrases that scoping in prose ('Optionally scope the alert to a specific provider or model'), adding no format, enum, or edge-case detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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?

Specific verb+resource ('Register a webhook URL') with the trigger condition (price change beyond a percentage) stated up front. The second sentence narrows scope and the third names the sibling (manage_price_alert) that handles later lifecycle, so an agent can distinguish it from list_price_alerts and check_price_drift without inspecting schemas.

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?

Explicitly says the provider/model scoping is optional and directs follow-up operations (view/delete) to manage_price_alert, which is the key routing decision for this family of tools. It stops short of saying when *not* to register, e.g. versus check_price_drift for one-off inspection, so it is clear context without full exclusions.

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

All LLM Pricing tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.