get_accountCurrent plan and credit balance. Costs: vectorize 1, generate/enhance 4, logo 8 credits. PNG and SVG downloads are free on every plan.
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": "get_account"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does 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 clearly states what data is returned (plan and credit balance) and adds a helpful cost breakdown for related paid operations, which goes beyond the empty input schema. It does not explicitly state that the call is read-only and consumes no credits, but that is strongly implied by the tool's nature.
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?
Two tight sentences: the first front-loads the purpose, the second delivers a compact, scannable pricing list. Every word earns its place with no filler.
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 zero-parameter, read-only account tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is complete. It tells the agent what info it will receive and provides the pricing model needed to decide whether to proceed with paid operations. Nothing essential is missing.
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?
Zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description appropriately contains no parameter info because there are no parameters to describe.
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 exactly what the tool returns: current plan and credit balance, which unambiguously identifies the account-info resource. It lacks an explicit verb but is not vague or tautological. Among the sibling tools (downloads, generation, tasks), it is clearly the only billing/account tool, so it is easy to distinguish.
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 description does not explicitly say when to use this tool or name alternatives. However, listing credit costs (vectorize 1, generate/enhance 4, logo 8) strongly implies the tool should be used to check balance before consuming credits via those operations. The usage context is implied but not stated as guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.