get_pricingRetrieve live token packs and payment methods to quote accurate prices. Avoid outdated pricing by fetching current data directly.
Live token packs and payment methods. Never quote prices from memory. Free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| model | No | ||
| packages | Yes | ||
| stars_bot | No | ||
| wallet_url | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds 'live' and 'Free' as useful context but does not disclose return shape or any operational caveats; this is acceptable given the output schema and simple read-only nature.
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?
Three short fragments with no filler: resource, usage directive, and cost note. The key guidance 'Never quote prices from memory' is prominent, and the whole description can be absorbed at a glance.
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 parameterless, read-only tool that has an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states the domain and the essential usage directive. A minor gap is that it does not explicitly name related tools or exclusions, but the low complexity does not require more.
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?
The tool accepts zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document; per the rubric this receives the baseline 4.
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 explicitly identifies the resource as 'token packs and payment methods' and marks it as live, and the title supplies the query verb ('Get live pricing'). It is clearly a pricing lookup and distinct in purpose from the service/job/track siblings, though it does not name an alternative pricing-related sibling.
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?
'Never quote prices from memory' is an explicit directive to call this tool for current prices rather than relying on recalled information. It gives clear context for use, though it does not enumerate alternatives or state when not to use the tool beyond avoiding memory.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.