get_model_priceFind an AI model by ID or display name and return source-linked prices for cost budgeting and comparison.
Find a model by ID or display name and return source-linked prices.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| model | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | ||
| source | Yes | ||
| verified_at | Yes | ||
| aicostbudget_url | Yes | ||
| bundled_fallback | Yes | ||
| official_source_urls | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds 'source-linked prices', hinting at provenance of the returned data, but says nothing about lookup failure behavior or external-source reliability that openWorldHint implies.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the core action and the accepted lookup keys come first.
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 read tool with an output schema that documents the return shape, the description covers the essentials. The main omission is behavior when no model matches, which matters given the openWorldHint.
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 carry the param burden. It usefully clarifies that the single 'model' argument accepts either an ID or a display name, but gives no guidance on ambiguity, casing, or partial matching.
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 states a specific verb (find/return) and resource (model, prices) and clarifies the lookup key accepts either an ID or a display name. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like list_models or price_changes, so an agent must infer the boundary.
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?
Usage is only implied: the description suggests you use this when you have a model identifier and want its price. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives such as compare_models or price_changes, which overlap in subject matter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.