get_credit_balanceHow many credits this user can spend and what each paid tool costs, in credits. Free to call.
`remaining` is what can be spent now: `monthly_left` (included with their plan,
resets each month) plus `topup_balance` (bought, never expires). `prices` is
credits per call, by tool.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by noting the call is free and by explaining that `remaining` = `monthly_left` (resets monthly) + `topup_balance` (never expires), which is genuine behavioral/return semantics not available in any structured field.
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 short, front-loaded paragraphs: the first says what the tool is and that it's free, the second decodes the return fields. No filler sentences, and the most decision-relevant line (what you get) comes first.
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?
With no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so adequately, naming `remaining`, `monthly_left`, `topup_balance`, and `prices` with their meanings. Nothing an agent needs to call or interpret this tool is missing.
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 takes zero parameters, so the 4 baseline applies. The description introduces no parameter concepts, and none are 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?
States exactly what the tool returns: the user's spendable credits and the per-tool credit price of paid tools. No sibling tool covers billing/credits, so the agent can select it unambiguously from this sentence alone.
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?
'Free to call' gives a useful cost/economy signal and implies it can be called liberally, e.g. before invoking a paid tool. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use it versus alternatives, nor any exclusion or trigger condition — usage is only implied.
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.