Skip to main content
Glama

Get Balance

get_balance
Read-onlyIdempotent

Get your balance, plan usage left (%) and API job slots in use.

Reads /v2/inferences/credits plus the account usage (GET /usage). On a plan, 2 API jobs run at once on plan usage; usage.api_job_slots shows how many are busy.

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": "get_balance"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rd_api_keyNoRetroDiffusion API key (rdpk-...) for this call only; overrides session or header auth.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: it names the backing endpoints (/v2/inferences/credits and GET /usage) and explains what usage.api_job_slots actually measures, which the annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loaded with what the agent gets back, then a short supplementary paragraph on semantics. The endpoint paths are slightly internal-facing but earn their place by grounding the return fields. No filler sentences.

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

Completeness4/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described in prose, and annotations cover the read-only safety profile. The description is sufficient to call the tool correctly; only a rate-limit/refresh note or explicit when-to-use hint is missing.

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?

Only one optional parameter exists, and schema coverage is 100% with a clear description of rd_api_key as a per-call auth override. The description adds nothing on parameters, but the schema already does the full job, so the baseline 4 applies.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('Get your balance') and enumerates exactly what is returned: plan usage left (%) and API job slots in use. No sibling tool covers account balance, so the agent can distinguish this from estimate_* and get_style_usage purely from the description.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies its usage context ('On a plan, 2 API jobs run at once...') but never explicitly states when to call this versus alternatives like get_style_usage or get_service_status. Usage is inferable from the stated purpose rather than spelled out.

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.