get_usageReturns your current plan, remaining credit balance and call volume over the last 30 days. Free to call.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_usage"
}
}| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the cost profile ('Free to call') and the data window ('last 30 days'), which are genuine behavioral facts beyond the schema. It does not mention auth requirements or rate limits, so it falls short of a 5.
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 tight sentences with the contents front-loaded and the cost note appended. Every clause earns its place; nothing is repeated from the schema or title.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description must hint at the return shape, and it does by naming the three returned fields and their window. No annotations exist either, and the 'free to call' note covers the main behavioral concern. Minor gap: no mention of formatting or staleness.
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, which is the baseline-4 case. The description adds no parameter semantics because none exist, and needs none.
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 a specific verb (get) and resource (usage) and enumerates exactly what is returned: plan, remaining credit balance, and call volume over the last 30 days. It is clearly distinguishable from the invoice-oriented siblings (extract_invoice, generate_invoice, validate_invoice, describe_coverage).
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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternatives, but for a zero-parameter, cost-free read tool the implied usage ('check your balance/usage') is reasonably self-evident. It provides no routing conditions.
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.