Get the current Fox Credit balance for the Verifox account tied to the API key. Free — no credits charged. Use it to check remaining balance before a big verify/find run (verify = 1 credit/email, find = 10 credits/contact).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses that it is free ('no credits charged') and implies read-only. Could mention rate limits or response format, but adequate for a simple balance check.
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 concise sentences front-loading purpose and key behavioral trait. Every sentence adds value with zero waste.
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?
Covers purpose, cost, and usage context. Lacks specification of return format (e.g., data type), but for a balance check the expected result is simple enough that missing output schema doesn't severely hinder usability.
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 exist, schema coverage 100%. Baseline of 4 applies; description adds no parameter info because none needed.
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?
Uses specific verb 'Get' and resource 'Fox Credit balance' with account context. Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools that perform verify/find operations.
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?
Explicitly states when to use: 'check remaining balance before a big verify/find run'. Provides credit costs for sibling tools, guiding the agent on planning.
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 unique, clearly defined purpose: find_email for single lookup, find_emails for bulk, verify_email for single verification, verify_emails for bulk, plus separate tools for checking credits and polling async jobs. No overlap.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., find_email, verify_emails, get_credits, get_job). The convention is uniform and predictable.
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped, covering both single and batch operations for finding and verifying emails, plus needed auxiliary functions (credits, job polling). This is optimal for the domain.
The tool set provides a complete workflow: finding emails (single/bulk), verifying emails (single/bulk), checking credits, and handling async jobs. No obvious missing operations for the stated purpose.
