Calculate the USD cost to transcribe a given audio duration across speech-to-text providers using a built-in hourly price table, so you can compare provider expenses.
Estimate the cost in USD of transcribing duration_seconds of audio with each
provider, from the built-in hourly price table. Unknown prices are null.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| providers | No | ||
| duration_seconds | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real behavioral facts: pricing comes from a static built-in table (not live/API pricing), and unknown prices yield null rather than an error. It omits the response shape (per-provider mapping) and whether any network call occurs.
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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, with the null behavior appended as a caveat. No filler.
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?
No output schema and no annotations, so the description should be fuller. It conveys the unit and the null convention but leaves the return structure and the providers parameter behavior to inference.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It covers duration_seconds implicitly but says nothing about the `providers` parameter – what identifier format it expects, or what the null default means (presumably all providers). That is a consequential gap for a pricing lookup.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Estimate the cost in USD of transcribing') plus the basis (built-in hourly price table). It is clearly distinct from siblings compare_stt and list_providers, though it never names them.
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 – an agent can infer this is a pre-flight pricing check, but the description never says when to prefer it over compare_stt or list_providers, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.