Retrieve monthly or annual plan tariffs with pinned period values to avoid invalid requests and get the current price list.
List plan tariffs (the actual price list). Wraps syntx.plans.listTariffs. Hits GET /api/v1/plans/tariffs?period=monthly|annual. The server 422s on any other period value, so the enum is pinned in the schema.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| period | No | Tariff period. Defaults to "monthly" (matches the web client). | monthly |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully states that the call hits a GET endpoint, indicating a read operation, and that the server returns 422 for invalid period values, which is concrete error behavior. It does not cover auth, rate limits, or return shape, but for a simple list endpoint the disclosed behavior is solid.
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 short and front-loads the tool's purpose. The sentence about wrapping the SDK method is less useful to an agent than the endpoint and validation behavior, but overall there is little wasted text.
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?
For a low-complexity tool with one optional enum parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, endpoint, default behavior, and validation failure. It does not describe the returned tariff structure or auth requirements, but the essential calling information is present.
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 already 100%, with the period enum and default fully documented. The description adds value by explaining why the enum is pinned and that invalid values cause a server 422, which goes beyond the schema's basic enumeration.
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 a specific verb and resource: "List plan tariffs," and clarifies it is "the actual price list." This distinguishes it from pricing-related siblings such as list-token-pricing and get-llm-limits, which cover different pricing concepts.
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 name and description imply usage for listing plan tariffs, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not route the agent between this tool and siblings like list-token-pricing or get-llm-limits, leaving alternatives to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.