Anyone else tired of juggling API keys + billing for every tool your agent touches?
Summary
Discusses the hassle of managing separate API keys and billing for multiple tools in agent workflows. Highlights Orthogonal (YC W26), an MCP server/SDK offering unified pay-per-call access to various APIs.
Similar Articles
How does your agent actually get its API keys?
A developer discusses three common patterns for how coding agents obtain API keys, highlighting that agents can circumvent restrictions by being resourceful, and asks the community about their real-world setups and experiences.
Centralizing API keys is convenient, but should the agent ever see them?
An exploration of whether AI agents should ever directly see API credentials, inspired by the open-source OneCLI project which uses a gateway to swap placeholders for real keys, sparking a discussion on trust and security in AI tooling.
I moved orchestration from the client into the MCP server and hid a multi-agent system behind a *single tool*. Tradeoffs inside.
The author shares a technique for moving orchestration from the client into the MCP server, hiding a multi-agent system behind a single tool, and discusses tradeoffs.
We gave our SaaS an MCP server (~150 tools) — now Claude runs our project management. Lessons learned.
The SaaS company TRCR built an MCP server exposing ~150 tools for AI agents, and shares six key lessons from dogfooding with Claude: agents expose API flaws, tool descriptions matter as product copy, self-contained context is crucial, OAuth 2.1 is worth the pain, combining agents with billing data is powerful, and dogfooding shifts the product roadmap.
Are you guys also hitting a cost wall with agents? Any harnesses that actually support Batch API?
A developer discusses the high cost of agentic workflows due to treating all inference as realtime, and asks the community for frameworks or patterns that support batch API natively to reduce costs.