Standard pricing: 0.1 XRP (standard); 0.5 XRP (AI-enhanced). FREE.
The legacy "tourism" key is retained as a deprecated alias for "standard"
(both resolve to 100000 drops / 0.1 XRP) for backward compatibility.
Prefer "standard". Will be removed in MCP API v2.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions backward compatibility and that the 'tourism' alias will be removed in MCP API v2, but it does not state whether the tool is read-only, what it returns, how errors are handled, or any authentication requirements.
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 text is short and front-loads the pricing tiers before the deprecation note. It is mostly free of filler, though the formatting with quotes, parentheses, and line breaks makes it slightly harder to parse than necessary.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should at minimum clarify the tool's action and the role of the slug parameter. It omits both, leaving the agent to guess what a call actually returns or how slug filters the result.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It implies valid values for the slug parameter ('standard', 'AI-enhanced', and the deprecated 'tourism') and explains how 'tourism' resolves, which adds real meaning. However, it never explicitly maps these values to the slug parameter or says what happens when slug is omitted.
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 begins with 'Standard pricing: 0.1 XRP...' which reads like a pricing table rather than a statement of what the tool does. It never says 'returns pricing' or 'gets pricing for a given slug,' so the agent must infer the tool's action largely from the name. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like get_country_data beyond the topic of pricing.
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?
There is no guidance on when to call this tool versus alternatives. The note to 'Prefer standard' concerns a parameter value, not tool selection, and there is no mention of prerequisites or typical scenarios for using the pricing endpoint.
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.