get_balanceWhat the account has left, and when it resets. On a plan with a rate limit (no monthly quota) this is the leads left in the current 7-day period; on a metered plan it is the monthly allotment remaining.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | No | ||
| plan | Yes | ||
| period_used | No | ||
| period_limit | No | ||
| leads_remaining | Yes | ||
| period_resets_at | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / properties / period_limitAdded value: +{
+ "type": "number"
+}Output schema / properties / period_resets_atAdded value: +{
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+}Output schema / properties / period_usedAdded value: +{
+ "type": "number"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context: it explains the reset behavior and how balance differs by plan type, going beyond the binary annotations. No contradiction; it enriches understanding of the tool's output.
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 tightly worded sentences, with the core purpose ('what the account has left, and when it resets') front-loaded. The second sentence clarifies plan-specific nuances without redundancy. No wasted words.
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?
With no parameters and an output schema available, the description fully covers what the tool does and how to interpret the result. It clarifies reset timing and plan distinctions, leaving no ambiguity about the return value's meaning.
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 has zero parameters, so baseline is 4 per rubric. The description adds no parameter details because none exist, but it effectively explains what the returned value represents, which is more relevant than parameter semantics.
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's purpose: reporting remaining lead balance and reset timing. It distinguishes between rate-limited (7-day period) and metered (monthly) plans, providing specificity beyond the title. No sibling tool covers balance queries, so it stands apart.
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: check balance to know remaining leads before operations. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but given the sibling list contains no similar tools, that omission is acceptable. It clearly explains when the value applies (current period) without needing exclusions.
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.