Show the connected API key's remaining credit balances (validation, geocode, email, phone pools; trial expiry; the UK free-trial PAF counter for trial keys). Free — never consumes credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses that the tool is free and never consumes credits, which is critical for a balance-checking tool. It does not mention authentication or rate limits, but the behavior is straightforward given no parameters.
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?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the main action. It lists multiple balance types, making it slightly verbose, but it remains concise and efficient.
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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description explains what balances are shown. It could mention the output format (e.g., JSON), but it sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and behavior.
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?
There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds full meaning by explaining what the tool reports, so no parameter details 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?
The description clearly specifies the action 'Show the connected API key's remaining credit balances' and enumerates the specific pools (validation, geocode, email, phone; trial expiry; UK free-trial PAF counter). This distinguishes it from sibling tools which perform enrichment, geocoding, or validation.
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?
The description implies usage for checking balances before operations, but no explicit when-to-use or alternatives are given. It does not state when not to use or compare with siblings, leaving usage guidance 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.
Most tools target distinct operations: validation (single/batch), geocoding, reverse geocoding, enrichment, UK postcode expansion, and account management. The main overlap is between enrich_us_ca_address and validate_address, which also includes an enrichment block for US/CA matches, potentially causing confusion about which to use.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., check_balance, expand_uk_postcode, validate_addresses_batch). The naming is uniform and predictable across the set.
8 tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range and appropriately scoped for a geocoding/validation API. Each tool serves a distinct function without unnecessary bloat, and the count reflects the complexity of the domain.
The core workflows—single and batch validation, forward and reverse geocoding, enrichment, and UK postcode expansion—are covered. Minor gaps include the lack of a batch geocoding tool and the redundant enrichment functionality already present in validate_address, but these do not create dead ends.
