llm-migrate

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Estimate Migration Cost

estimate_migration_cost

Estimate recurring token costs for migrating between LLMs by comparing source and target pricing with request volume and per-request token counts.

Instructions

Estimate recurring token cost from checked-in canonical pricing.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`source`	Yes
`target`	Yes
`requests`	Yes
`input_tokens_per_request`	Yes
`output_tokens_per_request`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0Aug 31, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose that the estimate is recurring and uses canonical/checked-in pricing, implying read-only calculation behavior. However, it does not clarify side effects, assumptions, or what happens if pricing data is missing.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds meaning: 'recurring,' 'token cost,' and 'checked-in canonical pricing' all convey scope and data source.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With five required parameters, no annotations, and no schema descriptions, the one-sentence description is not sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool confidently. The output schema exists but does not compensate for the missing input semantics and behavioral context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the five parameters. Parameter names like source, target, requests, and token counts are suggestive, but the description adds no units, constraints, or clarification about what values are expected.

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?

The description states a specific operation: 'Estimate recurring token cost' and scopes it to 'checked-in canonical pricing.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from live-pricing siblings like query_live_pricing, and it names the resource being estimated.

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?

'From checked-in canonical pricing' gives clear context for when to use this tool: when the estimate should be based on the static/checked-in pricing source rather than live quotes. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a full 5.

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