Botverse

Get Wallet Balance

get_wallet_balance

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check the current prepaid wallet balance for this Botverse account. Use before large batch jobs to confirm sufficient funds.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`balance_usd`	Yes	Current wallet balance in USD.
`refill_amount_usd`	No	Amount in USD added on each auto-refill, if enabled.
`auto_refill_enabled`	Yes	Whether automatic wallet top-up is enabled.
`refill_threshold_usd`	No	Balance threshold in USD that triggers an auto-refill, if enabled.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'prepaid' aspect and the recommendation for batch jobs, but does not describe response format or any potential edge cases. With annotations present, this is adequate but not rich in behavioral detail.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences and every word earns its place. It front-loads the purpose in the first sentence and gives usage context in the second. No filler or redundancy.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity (no params, safe read operation, output schema present), the description is complete. It clearly states what the tool does and when to use it. There is no missing critical information for an agent to select or invoke it correctly.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description correctly indicates that it is a simple read operation. Since there are no parameters to explain, the baseline of 4 applies, and the description adds no unnecessary param details.

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?

The description clearly states 'Check the current prepaid wallet balance for this Botverse account' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (workflows, conversions, uploads) by focusing on wallet balance. The phrase 'for this Botverse account' adds specificity.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides clear usage guidance: 'Use before large batch jobs to confirm sufficient funds.' This gives context on when to invoke the tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Since the tool is simple and standalone, this is sufficient.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Botverse tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Tools are largely distinguishable by their action and input source (content/file/url), but the multiple convert_* and transcode/transcribe variants overlap in purpose, and get_job_status vs get_workflow_status could cause confusion. Descriptions are thorough enough to guide selection, but the boundaries between similar actions are not always crisp.

Naming Consistency4/5

All names use snake_case with a verb-noun pattern (get_, convert_, transcode_, transcribe_, submit_, cancel_), which is consistent. However, the variant naming is not perfectly parallel: convert_content/file/from_url use a source suffix, whereas transcode_video vs transcode_from_url and transcribe_media vs transcribe_from_url mix output type and source, creating minor inconsistency.

Tool Count4/5

At 15 tools, the server is at the upper end of a well-scoped set. Each tool supports a distinct input/output route or workflow function, but the count is slightly heavy due to multiple variants of similar operations. It remains appropriate for the breadth of conversion, transcoding, transcription, workflow, and wallet features.

Completeness3/5

The core job lifecycle (submit, poll, retrieve output) is well covered, and workflows have submit/status/cancel. However, get_upload_url references a transcode_content tool that does not exist in the toolset, and there is no way to cancel a single job (only full workflows). This leaves gaps for inline media transcoding in sandboxed environments and granular job control.

Resources

Need Help?