transkribus_recog_get_costsGet cost information for a recognition model by providing collection and model IDs, optionally specifying page count, to plan processing expenses.
Get the cost information for a recognition model.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Resource ID | |
| collId | Yes | Collection ID | |
| credits | No | Credits parameter | AUTO |
| nrOfPages | No | Number of pages | |
| writeKwsIndex | No | Write KWS index |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not add any behavioral context beyond what is already provided by annotations. Annotations indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, but the description offers no additional insights such as authentication requirements or rate limits.
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 that is concise and front-loaded. It conveys the essential purpose without any unnecessary words, earning its place.
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 presence of many sibling tools and the absence of an output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what 'cost information' entails, how it relates to the parameters, or how the response should be interpreted, leaving the agent under-informed.
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?
Input schema has 100% description coverage for all 5 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any further explanation or meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides.
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 states 'Get the cost information for a recognition model', which clearly identifies the verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like transkribus_credit_get_costs or transkribus_doc_get_costs, which also get cost information for different entities.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.