account.overviewReturns the current credit balance and daily credit usage grouped by endpoint and network. Optionally set days to a value from 1 to 30; when omitted, the endpoint default is used.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | Number of calendar days to include, from 1 to 30. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / properties / data / properties / balanceRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Current available credit balance.",
- "type": "number"
-}Output schema / properties / data / properties / credit_open_balanceAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Current available credit balance.",
+ "type": "number"
+}Output schema / properties / data / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "credit_usage_total",
- "balance",
- "days"
-]New value: +[
+ "credit_usage_total",
+ "credit_open_balance",
+ "days"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by disclosing the grouping dimension and the fallback default when days is omitted, but says nothing about auth scope, freshness, or limits beyond 30 days.
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, front-loaded with the return payload before the optional parameter detail. Slight redundancy in restating the 1-to-30 range that the schema already enforces, but the second half earns its place via the default behavior.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the description still summarizes them helpfully. For a zero-required-parameter read-only tool this is nearly complete; only the relationship to sibling tools is left unaddressed.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already documents the 1-30 range, so the baseline is 3. The description goes one step further by stating that omitting days falls back to an endpoint default, which the schema does not mention.
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 and resource: returns credit balance plus daily usage broken down by endpoint and network. An agent knows exactly what comes back, but the description never acknowledges the overlapping sibling credits.balance, so it doesn't fully differentiate itself.
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 only guidance is about the days parameter, not about when to choose this tool over credits.balance or networks.properties. There is no stated context, prerequisite, or exclusion, leaving the agent to infer that this is the account-wide rollup.
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.