Cost Management MCP

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Get detailed OpenAI costs,' implying a read-only operation, but does not specify authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or data freshness. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps, though it avoids contradiction.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It directly communicates the tool's function and key outputs, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on output format, error cases, or integration with siblings. Without annotations or output schema, more context would improve completeness, but it meets a basic threshold.

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 the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying date range usage and model/token breakdowns, which are already covered by the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage without extra value.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('OpenAI costs'), and specifies the type of data returned ('detailed... with model breakdown and token usage'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'cost_get' or 'cost_breakdown', which might have overlapping functionality, preventing a score of 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'cost_get' or 'provider_compare' among the siblings. It lacks any context about prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.