get_pricingRetrieve public pricing for active models, filtered by provider or tag, to compare costs before building or routing requests.
Returns the public pricing surface for active models, with optional provider and tag filters.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tag | No | Filter by model tag. | |
| provider | No | Filter by provider ID. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.4Input schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"v0.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral fact beyond that: only 'active' models are included, which tells the agent the result set is scoped. It still says nothing about pagination, result size, or freshness.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The core behavior (returns pricing for active models) leads, and the filtering caveat follows immediately.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description should carry more of the return-value burden; 'public pricing surface' is evocative but vague about what fields come back or how many records. Combined with the missing differentiation from get_model_pricing, the definition is adequate but leaves real gaps for a read-only listing tool.
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 100%, so both optional parameters (tag, provider) are fully documented in the schema. The description merely restates them as 'optional provider and tag filters' without adding format, matching rules, or combinability semantics. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 gives a clear verb and resource: it returns the public pricing surface for active models. However, it does nothing to differentiate itself from the sibling tool get_model_pricing (nor from list_models/get_model), leaving the agent to guess which pricing tool to call.
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?
No when-to-use guidance is given. There is no mention of when this should be preferred over the near-identical sibling get_model_pricing, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must infer usage purely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.