AICostBudget AI API Pricing

Price changes

price_changes

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve the 20 newest source-linked AI API price-change events, filtered by provider or start date, to monitor cost shifts and keep budgets accurate.

Instructions

List up to 20 newest source-linked price-change events.

Tool call template

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": "price_changes"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`since`	No
`provider`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes
`source`	Yes
`verified_at`	Yes
`aicostbudget_url`	Yes
`bundled_fallback`	Yes
`official_source_urls`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 21, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: the result is capped at 20, ordered newest-first, and each event is source-linked. It does not explain what the 'since'/'provider' filters do behaviorally.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the limit and ordering constraints are stated up front where an agent will read them.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations carry the safety profile. The remaining gap is parameter meaning: two undocumented filters at 0% schema coverage, especially the open-ended 'provider' string, leave the agent guessing.

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%, so the description carries the full burden for the two parameters — and it says nothing about 'since' or 'provider'. A caller cannot learn from either source what values 'provider' accepts or whether 'since' is inclusive.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('source-linked price-change events') with a clear scope ('up to 20 newest'). It is distinguishable from get_model_price or compare_models, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no reference to the sibling tools. An agent must infer that this is a changelog/feed-style tool purely from the word 'events'.

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

Deploy Server