Estimate upper-bound costs for commercial and local MCP execution before running a provider, using duration, GPU rates, and retries to compare expenses.
Estimate commercial and local upper-bound cost without executing a provider.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| variants | Yes | ||
| retry_limit | Yes | ||
| duration_seconds | Yes | ||
| fixed_cost_cents | Yes | ||
| gpu_rate_cents_per_hour | Yes | ||
| commercial_rate_cents_per_second | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds the behavioral detail that no provider is executed, which reinforces this, but does not disclose additional traits such as rate limits, transient failures, or what 'upper-bound' assumptions are made.
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, compact sentence with no filler. The action and primary constraint are front-loaded.
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?
Despite low complexity in prose, the tool has 6 required, undocumented parameters and no output schema. The description gives no clues about parameter roles or the shape of the estimate, leaving an agent under-equipped to invoke it correctly.
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 0% and the description names no parameters. An agent cannot infer the meaning of duration_seconds, variants, commercial_rate_cents_per_second, gpu_rate_cents_per_hour, fixed_cost_cents, or retry_limit from the description or schema.
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 ('Estimate'), a clear resource ('commercial and local upper-bound cost'), and a distinguishing constraint ('without executing a provider'). This separates it from sibling tools like community.preview and policy.evaluate.
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 phrase 'without executing a provider' conveys when it should be used (before execution, for cost estimation) and implicitly that it is not for actually running operations. However, it does not name alternatives or give explicit exclusion criteria, so it stops short of full routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.