Epovest

Get the credit balance

get_credits

Read-onlyIdempotent

The prepaid credit balance of the account: available credits, which never expire, and the amount reserved by surveys in progress with the detail of each reservation. Read it before starting a tracker, or when a call fails with insufficient_credits. It also carries what a top-up is worth here, so you never have to work it out: monthly_estimate_minor is what the account has set up to consume in a month, and suggested_topups[] gives three amounts derived from it, each with amount_minor, amount (major units) and covers_months, the runway it buys at that pace. min_topup_minor is the floor a top-up has to clear. When the account consumes nothing yet, monthly_estimate_minor is 0 and suggested_topups is empty: ask the person what they want to measure, and the amounts appear as soon as a tracker is configured.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description goes beyond by explaining the response structure (fields like monthly_estimate_minor, suggested_topups, min_topup_minor) and the edge case when the account consumes nothing yet. Since there is no output schema, this disclosure is essential and well done.

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?

Description is dense but every sentence adds value: core purpose is front-loaded, followed by usage timing and then detailed output semantics. No fluff; the length is justified because it compensates for the lack of an output schema.

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 0 parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool returns, how to interpret each field, and the special case for a new account. Nothing an agent needs to call and use this tool correctly is missing.

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?

Tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per rubric, 0 params earns a baseline of 4; no parameter explanations needed, and the description correctly focuses on output interpretation instead.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'get' and the resource 'prepaid credit balance', and specifies exactly what it returns (available credits, reserved amounts, reservations). It also gives a precise use case ('Read it before starting a tracker'), which helps distinguish it from other read tools in the sibling list like get_usage or get_account_settings.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'before starting a tracker' and 'when a call fails with insufficient_credits'. It does not mention when not to use or name alternatives, but for a read-only balance check, the provided guidance is sufficient and practical.

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

All Epovest 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

Each tool maps to a distinct resource and action, and the descriptions go out of their way to separate near-neighbor concepts like surfaces vs corroborations and score series vs raw responses. A few related pairs (get_results/get_responses, get_credits/get_usage, create_surface/create_corroboration) could still be confused at a glance, so it is not a perfect 5.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names follow a highly consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern across all 67 tools, with clear families like create_, update_, get_, list_, archive_, restore_, and delete_. Minor quirks such as topup_credits as one word do not break the overall uniformity.

Tool Count1/5

67 tools is an extreme count for a single MCP server, even for a broad brand-monitoring domain. The surface is bloated with lifecycle variants per entity, and the sheer number makes the server hard to navigate and prompt against.

Completeness5/5

The server covers full lifecycles for projects, trackers, surfaces, corroborations, quests, logbook entries, keyword discoveries, competitor scans, link targets, sources, support, and billing. Archive/restore and soft-delete paths prevent dead ends, and nearly every obvious workflow has a corresponding tool.

Resources

Need Help?