Run a paid AI model or agent route by providing a route, prompt, and valid payment headers.
Run a paid model/chat or agent-run route after caller supplies valid payment headers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| route | Yes | ||
| prompt | Yes | ||
| payment_headers | No | ||
| agent_id | No |
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It mentions the need for valid payment headers but does not disclose side effects, error behavior, or reversibility. This is adequate for a straightforward run tool but lacks depth.
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 a single sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the core purpose and precondition. Efficient for a simple tool.
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?
With 4 parameters (2 required), no parameter descriptions, and only minimal behavioral info, the description is incomplete. Although an output schema exists, the description adds no details about the return value or process.
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%, and the description does not explain any parameter (route, prompt, agent_id, payment_headers). It only mentions payment headers indirectly, leaving the agent uninformed about required parameters.
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 clearly states the action ('run') and the resource ('paid model/chat or agent-run route'), and specifies the precondition of valid payment headers. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ddg_list_models or ddg_request_ollama_model.
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 when to use (when payment headers are available) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. Context signals show no sibling differentiation guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.