aetherwave_balanceReturns the current AetherWave credit balance for the API key. Use this BEFORE a generation to confirm sufficient credits, especially for video which can cost 30-300+ credits depending on model/duration/resolution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safe-read nature is covered. The description adds useful context about video generation costs (30-300+ credits) which helps the agent anticipate financial checks. It does not describe return format, but that is less critical given the simple resource.
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 with no redundancy. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds actionable usage guidance. Every word serves a purpose.
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 zero-parameter, read-only balance tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what it does and when to use it. The cost guidance for video fills the only needed contextual gap. No missing behavior is apparent.
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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description needs to explain no parameter semantics; it correctly focuses on the return value and usage context.
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 'Returns the current AetherWave credit balance for the API key' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling generation/editing tools by focusing on a read-only balance check.
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 instructs 'Use this BEFORE a generation to confirm sufficient credits', providing a clear when-to-use context. The video cost range (30-300+ credits) further guides priority usage without needing to name alternatives, as no sibling tool offers balance checking.
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 targets a distinct media operation (image, video, audio, listing, mastering, etc.) with clear boundaries. Even similar tools like generate_image and edit_image are differentiated by their primary intent (creation vs. modification) and model selection guidance.
All tools follow the 'aetherwave_verb_noun' pattern consistently, using snake_case. Verbs and nouns are descriptive and predictable (e.g., generate_image, list_video_models, remove_background_video).
16 tools is slightly above the ideal range (3-15) but remains well-scoped for a multimedia generation platform covering image, video, audio, and user management. Each tool serves a distinct purpose, and no obvious bloat exists.
The tool surface covers core creation, editing, listing, and enhancement workflows for images, videos, and audio. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no delete tool, no get-single-creation tool), but the essential lifecycle is well-covered.