Create a new pricing plan with tier, daily request limit, optional Stripe Price ID, and included requests to set API consumption limits for consumers.
Create a new pricing plan
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tier | Yes | Plan tier name | |
| stripe_price_id | No | Stripe Price ID (optional) | |
| requests_included | No | Requests included (for PAYG) | |
| rate_limit_per_day | Yes | Daily request limit |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'create a new pricing plan', which implies a mutation but offers no details on side effects, required permissions, idempotency, or whether the operation is reversible. This is a significant gap for a write operation.
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 with no wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded with the action and resource. However, it is so minimal that it sacrifices useful context, but for conciseness alone, it scores well.
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 complexity (4 params, required fields, optional Stripe ID) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is inadequate. It fails to mention required parameters, the relationship to Stripe, or any operational context. An agent would need to rely entirely on the schema, which is insufficient for a complete understanding.
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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters, but per the baseline rule for high coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.
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 clear verb 'Create' and resource 'pricing plan', which unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_service and create_consumer. It also implicitly differentiates from list_plans by indicating a creation action. This is a specific, non-redundant statement.
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 prerequisites, conditions, or when another tool would be more appropriate. The agent is left to infer that this is for creating a plan, but no context or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.