get_credit_balanceReturns the authenticated user's current credit balance as a whole number of credits. One credit screens one address: screen_address costs 1 credit, while this call and the history, narrative, and compare tools cost zero. Check it before screen_address to confirm a screen can be afforded.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds valuable context by explaining the credit costing model and return format. It does not repeat annotation info, and no contradictions are present.
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 focused sentences: the core purpose, cost context, and usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.
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 parameterless, read-only tool with strong annotations, the description fully covers what the tool does, when to use it, and how it relates to siblings. No gaps remain.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully covers this aspect. The description correctly adds no parameter details, which is appropriate per the baseline for parameterless tools.
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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('current credit balance'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling screening tools. It also specifies the return unit ('whole number of credits'), removing ambiguity.
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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Check it before screen_address to confirm a screen can be afforded.' It also explains the cost relationship between tools, naming the specific alternative that consumes credits.
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.
Each tool has a distinct role: screen_address is the only credit-costing action, while get_credit_balance, histories, narrative, compare, and monitoring are clearly read/reporting tools. The only minor ambiguity is between get_screening_history and get_address_screening_history, but the descriptions clearly separate all-address history from single-address history.
The dominant pattern is get_<noun>_<detail>, and screen_address is a clear imperative action. compare_screening_runs breaks the get_* pattern but still uses a recognizable verb-first structure, so naming is mostly consistent and predictable.
Seven tools is well-scoped for a wallet reputation screening service: one core action, a balance check, two history views, a narrative fetcher, a comparison tool, and monitoring events. Each tool has a clear purpose and none feel redundant or peripheral.
The surface covers the core workflow: screen an address, retrieve narrative, review history, check credit, compare runs, and monitor events. A notable minor gap is the lack of a direct fetch for a single screening run by screeningId, though the history and compare tools partially work around this.