Skip to main content
Glama

quality_wallet

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read separate quality credits, cap, low balance and funding link. Five trials once per verified organization; $20/100 prepaid checks, no subscription/automatic replenishment.

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": "quality_wallet"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish this as a safe, idempotent, non-destructive read, so the description only needs to add context. It does add genuinely non-obvious business rules: five trials once per verified organization, $20 per 100 prepaid checks, and no subscription or automatic replenishment — constraints an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Two short sentences with no filler, and the returned-field list is front-loaded. The phrasing "Read separate quality credits" is slightly awkward and could be tightened, but nothing is redundant.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the burden of describing the response, and it partially does by naming credits, cap, low balance and funding link. It leaves unclear what a "funding link" is, how credits relate to checks, or what the response looks like, so it is adequate but incomplete for a billing-adjacent 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description misleads about inputs.

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

Purpose3/5

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

"Read separate quality credits, cap, low balance and funding link" gives a verb (Read) and enumerates the returned fields, so the resource is identifiable. However, "separate quality credits" is ambiguous phrasing, and the description never distinguishes this from the sibling quality_billing_status, which an agent would plausibly confuse it with.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives such as quality_billing_status or quality_purchase_history. The trial/pricing sentences describe commercial terms rather than conditions that select this tool over a sibling.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.