check_balanceCheck your daily Switch spending — what you have spent today, your daily limit, and what is remaining. Optionally pass an estimatedCost (USD) to also get whether you can afford it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| estimatedCost | No | Optional dollar amount to test against your daily limit. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds the optional estimatedCost behavior but does not disclose additional side effects, permissions, or edge cases, which is acceptable given the simple read-only 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 sentences, logically structured, with the main purpose first and optional behavior second. Every word 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 read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It clearly states what it checks, what it returns, and how the optional parameter alters the result, making it self-sufficient for an agent to select and invoke correctly.
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 schema covers the single optional parameter with 100% coverage, and the tool description reinforces the same meaning ('USD', 'afford it'). The description adds marginal value beyond the schema but does not provide new semantic information.
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 clearly states the tool checks daily Switch spending and returns spent, limit, and remaining. It uses a specific verb 'check' with a clear resource, and the optional affordability check distinguishes it from any sibling tool.
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 clear context: use for checking daily spending and optionally testing affordability. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but no competing balance tool exists among siblings, so implicit usage is sufficient.
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.
Several tools occupy nearly identical semantic ground: apply_iphone_realism and apply_ugc both describe casual phone-shot looks, upload_media and upload_reference_asset both accept uploads, and analyze_video overlaps heavily with analyze_video_report. The many apply_* style tools are essentially one tool parameterized by style, so agents can easily select the wrong one.
Most tools follow a clear verb_noun snake_case pattern such as generate_image, list_my_videos, get_editor_run, and upscale_video. A few outliers like voice, talking_avatar_video, and video_to_prompt do not use the same verb-first convention, but they are still readable and do not create significant confusion.
At 55 tools, the surface is far beyond what is appropriate for an MCP server; many of these be collapsed or parameterized, especially the 10 apply_* style wrappers and several overlapping upload/status helpers. Even for a broad media platform, this scale forces a huge context window and makes selecting the right tool impractical.
The surface covers generation, media display, video analysis, and Editor workflows well, but there are obvious gaps in library lifecycle management: move_asset and create_folder are referenced in tool descriptions without being exposed, and there is no clean way to delete or reorganize media assets. Agents following the descriptions will try to call tools that do not exist.