Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
tokencost-dev

tokencost-dev

by atriumn
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

calculate_estimate

Estimate token costs for any model by providing input and output token counts, with optional prompt caching discounts.

Instructions

Estimate the cost for a given number of input and output tokens on a specific model. Supports optional cached_tokens for prompt caching discounts.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "model_name": "<model_name>",
      "input_tokens": "<input_tokens>",
      "output_tokens": "<output_tokens>"
    },
    "name": "calculate_estimate"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
model_nameYesModel name (fuzzy matched)
input_tokensYesNumber of input tokens
output_tokensYesNumber of output tokens
cached_tokensNoNumber of input tokens served from cache (prompt caching). Must be <= input_tokens. These tokens are billed at the cached rate instead of the standard input rate.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.3

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It reveals that cached_tokens must be <= input_tokens and are billed differently, but does not specify behavior for unknown models or whether the tool is idempotent/read-only.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with main purpose. No redundant information.

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?

No output schema and description omits what the tool returns (e.g., estimated cost, currency). Also lacks examples or error cases. Incomplete for a cost estimation tool.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3. Description adds value by clarifying that cached_tokens must be <= input_tokens and that they trigger a different billing rate, which is extra context beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool estimates cost for tokens on a specific model, with mention of cached token discounts. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like compare_models and get_model_details.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any when-not-to-use conditions. The description only implies usage for cost estimation.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools