Retrieve the current month's cost breakdown and estimated savings from recorded guard events, helping you monitor AI agent spending and safety impacts.
Read-only hosted cost breakdown for the current month from the AgentGuard Read API. Estimated savings are recorded guard events, not an invoice credit.
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context about estimated savings being recorded guard events, not an invoice credit, which helps set expectations about the data's meaning. It doesn't mention pagination or response format, but that's acceptable for a zero-parameter tool.
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?
The description is two sentences, each earning its place: the first states the scope and source, the second clarifies an important caveat about the data's meaning. It's concise and front-loaded with the core purpose.
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 zero-parameter read-only tool with rich annotations, the description is largely complete. It clarifies the nature of the cost breakdown and the caveat about estimated savings. The only minor gap is not detailing the output structure, but since there's no output schema, it could be more explicit, but the tool is simple enough.
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?
Since there are 0 parameters, the schema provides full coverage at 100%, and the description doesn't need to explain any parameters. A baseline of 4 is appropriate because there is nothing to clarify, and the description correctly focuses on the output's semantics.
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 (get) and resource (hosted cost breakdown for the current month), and clarifies it is read-only. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_usage or check_budget, but the resource is distinct enough for an agent to understand its purpose.
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?
The description implies usage for viewing current month's costs but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_usage or check_budget. It mentions the source (AgentGuard Read API) but doesn't state exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.