get_model_pricingFetches pricing details for a specific AI model to explain costs. Use it for price breakdowns, not for building non-chat requests.
Retrieves pricing-only detail for one model. Use this endpoint for price explanation, not for non-chat request construction.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| model | Yes | The model ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.4Input schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"v0.3.1Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / model / descriptionPrevious value: -"Public TokenLab model ID."New value: +"The model ID"Input schema / properties / model / minLengthRemoved value: -1v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the 'pricing-only' scope restriction, with no detail on return shape or pricing units/tiers.
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 short sentences, purpose first, then usage constraint. No wasted words, though the second sentence's phrasing is vague rather than crisp.
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?
A simple single-parameter read tool with rich annotations and no output schema. The description covers purpose and scope adequately; only pricing-specific return expectations are left implicit.
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?
Only one parameter, and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage ('The model ID'). The description adds nothing about model ID format or lookup behavior, so baseline 3 applies.
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 (retrieves) and resource (model pricing detail) with scope qualifier 'pricing-only'. It separates itself from sibling get_pricing partially, though the distinction between the two pricing tools is not fully drawn.
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?
Gives one positive condition (price explanation) and one exclusion (not for non-chat request construction), but the exclusion is phrased in cryptic jargon and no explicit alternative sibling is named. Usage is implied rather than routed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.