Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
openclaw-cost-tracker-mcp

openclaw-cost-tracker-mcp

by temurkhan13
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

find_cost_anomalies

Detects requests whose cost exceeds a configurable multiple of their agent's median cost, surfacing anomalies like large-context pastes or runaway loops.

Instructions

Requests whose cost is threshold_multiplierx or more above their agent's median request cost. Default 3.0x. Surfaces giant-context-paste accidents, runaway loops, model regressions, etc.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "find_cost_anomalies"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
window_hoursNo
threshold_multiplierNoMultiplier above agent median to flag (default 3.0, min 1.5)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains the tool flags requests exceeding a threshold, but does not disclose if it modifies data, requires permissions, or the format of returned anomalies. This is adequate but leaves gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences suffice to convey purpose, examples, and default values. Information is front-loaded and no unnecessary words are present.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, the description could elaborate on the output format. However, the context of sibling cost tools and the clear examples provide sufficient completeness for a diagnostic tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 50% with only threshold_multiplier having a description. The tool description adds meaning by explaining the purpose of threshold_multiplier (default 3.0x, min 1.5) and implies window_hours as a time window. This provides useful context beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb 'find' and resource 'cost anomalies', clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like cost_overview or top_cost_drivers, and provides concrete use cases (giant-context-paste accidents, runaway loops).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for detecting anomalous cost spikes with examples, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives. However, the context of sibling tools makes its purpose distinct.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools