Check the current user's account status: API call balance, plan, enabled/disabled graphs, and profile info. Use when the user asks "how many API calls do I have?", "what plan am I on?", "what graphs can I access?", or similar account questions. Returns live data — not cached from session start.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already specify readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. Description adds value by stating 'Returns live data — not cached from session start,' which is a behavioral detail beyond annotations. No contradictions.
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?
Three sentences, each purposeful: first defines purpose, second gives usage cues, third adds transparency. No redundancy or superfluous text.
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 tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does, when to use it, and what it returns. Complete in its context.
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?
No parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. Description adds value by enumerating the output fields (balance, plan, graphs, profile), which compensates for the lack of an output schema.
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?
Clearly states the tool checks the current user's account status, listing specific data points (balance, plan, graphs, profile). Distinguishes from siblings like get_capabilities and get_evidence by focusing on the user's own account.
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?
Provides explicit example queries to guide usage ('how many API calls do I have?'). Lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool appropriately.
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.
The tools are mostly distinct: search_graph, get_node, get_neighbors, get_evidence, and get_label_values all relate to graph exploration, but each has a clear role (search vs. profile vs. relationships vs. evidence vs. label enumeration). consult_analyst and consult_human_agent are similar in purpose and wording, but the 'Synthetic' vs. 'Human Agent' distinction in names and descriptions is sufficient to keep them separated.
All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern, with sensible verbs like get_, list_, search_, request_, check_, consult_, and generate_. The paired request_deliverable / check_deliverable_status and list_analysts / consult_* relationships are clear and predictable.
14 tools is well within the ideal 3–15 range and each tool appears justified: graph discovery, trend exploration, evidence retrieval, expert consultation, deliverable commissioning, visual generation, account/capability introspection, and analyst listing. No redundant extras or obvious bloat.
The tool set covers the full workflow promised by the server: discovering graphs and analysts, searching and drilling into trends, retrieving evidence, consulting experts, commissioning and polling deliverables, generating visuals, and checking account status. There are no significant dead ends or clearly missing operations for the stated expert-consultation purpose.