Exact live prices (USD) for MakeMyContent plans and MakeMyContent Clips, with checkout lookup keys. Read-only, no key needed.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_pricing"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares read-only behavior and that no auth key is required, and it pins down that prices are live and denominated in USD rather than estimates or cached values. It stops short of stating rate limits, caching behavior, or the shape of the returned payload.
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?
A single dense sentence with the operational constraints ('Read-only, no key needed') front-loaded and zero filler. Every clause adds usable information.
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 zero-argument read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: what data comes back, the currency, the freshness guarantee, and auth/safety posture. The only real omission is any hint about the response structure beyond the mention of lookup keys, which is minor given the tool's simplicity.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the schema is an empty object at 100% coverage. Baseline 4 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Exact live prices ... for MakeMyContent plans and MakeMyContent Clips') and adds the concrete payload detail that checkout lookup keys are included. An agent immediately knows this is the pricing source. It does not need to distinguish itself from siblings because none of the listed ones (clips_generate, clips_status, generate_script, sounds_like_you, viral_ideas) cover 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?
The definition implies when to call it -- whenever exact USD pricing is required -- and the 'no key needed' note lowers the bar for invocation. It gives no explicit conditions, exclusions, or pointers to alternatives, so guidance is implied rather than spelled out.
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.