Are coding agents getting expensive, or are we measuring cost the wrong way?

Seeing the recent token-burn discussion around agentic coding made me think the bigger issue is not just price. A coding agent can be expensive and still be worth it if it removes real engineering effort. But if the output still needs repeated review, debugging, cleanup, reruns, and human supervision, then the actual cost is much higher than the token bill. The real question is: Are we judging coding agents by how much they can do, or by how much trusted work they actually produce? Curious how others here think about this. Would you rather use: 1. Cheap agent, but needs constant supervision 2. Expensive agent, but produces more reliable output 3. Medium-cost agent with better control and visibility 4. Cost matters less if the output actually saves real engineering time