Retrieve BitPull plans and prices to compare available tiers and choose the option that fits your shared AI workload needs.
Plans and prices.
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": "bitpull_plans"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint=true annotation already tells the agent this is a safe read with no side effects, so the description's only job is to add context beyond that — and it adds none about what data is returned, whether pricing is currency/region dependent, or whether it reflects the logged-in account. A two-word phrase on top of an annotation does not earn more than a 2.
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?
Two words with no wasted clauses, which is maximally concise, but the brevity comes from under-specification rather than editorial discipline. There is no structure to speak of beyond a noun phrase.
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?
With no output schema, the description is the only place an agent can learn what this returns (list of plans? price figures? subscription status?), and it says nothing. For a no-arg read tool the burden is light, but 'Plans and prices.' leaves the core question — what exactly comes back — unanswered.
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 baseline for a parameterless tool applies. The remaining gap is return-value meaning, which is a different dimension.
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 'Plans and prices.' restates the tool name (bitpull_plans) rather than stating what the tool does. It hints that the return is plan/pricing information, but gives no verb, no scope, and nothing that distinguishes it from siblings like bitpull_open_payment_page or bitpull_install.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives anywhere in the definition. An agent must guess whether this fetches the user's current subscription, the catalog of purchasable plans, or pricing for a specific service.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.