get_pricingList Agent Control plans and trial truth. Starter $29 / Pro $49 / Team $149. 1-day trial, no card, no KYC. Pay on-chain USDC on Solana. A human principal owns billing and Approval Inbox.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context about the content (plans, pricing, trial details) and mentions payment and ownership, giving the agent a clear picture of what information is available without contradicting the 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?
The description is very concise—just two sentences—and front-loads the core purpose (listing plans) before providing details. It omits unnecessary text and is easy to scan.
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 pricing list with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it states what is returned (plan names, prices, trial info). Minor jargon like 'trial truth' and 'Agent Control' could be clearer but do not hinder understanding.
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?
With zero parameters, there is nothing to document. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description correctly contains no parameter explanations since none exist.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to list Agent Control plans and trial truth, with a clear verb ('List') and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like start_trial or create_checkout by focusing on plan display, not trial initiation or checkout.
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?
The description implies usage: if you need to show available plans and pricing, this is the tool. It does not explicitly mention when to use it over siblings, but the purpose is self-evident.
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.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: attaching humans, checking transfers, polling approvals, creating checkouts, retrieving statuses, pricing, and trial invites. Even similar tools like get_agent_status and get_status are clearly differentiated by their descriptions.
All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (attach_human, check_transfer, create_checkout, get_agent_status, get_approval, get_pricing, get_status, start_trial). No mixed conventions or disorganized naming.
Eight tools is a well-scoped set for the Agent Control domain, covering billing, trial, status, human attachment, and transfer approval without being bloated or too sparse.
The tool surface covers the essential lifecycle: attach human, start trial, create checkout, check transfer, poll approvals, and retrieve status/pricing. There are no obvious dead ends given that approvals and billing are human-owned.