Check how much research allowance is left before running anything expensive. Returns credits remaining, how much of this month's research allowance has been used, when it refreshes, and what each research action costs. Free: this never consumes credits. Call this first before a large sweep across many keywords, competitors or pages, so you can budget the run rather than hitting the limit part-way through.
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does substantial work: it declares the operation is free ('this never consumes credits'), explains the budgeting purpose, and lists what is returned (credits remaining, monthly usage, refresh timing, per-action cost). It does not cover auth requirements or rate limits, but the key behavioral trait — that calling it is cost-free — is disclosed clearly.
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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by return contents and usage trigger. The middle sentence enumerating return fields is slightly list-heavy, but every sentence contributes routing or behavioral value rather than filler.
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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the return values (credits remaining, allowance used, refresh date, action costs). Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly and interpret the result is missing.
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, so there is no parameter semantics to document; the baseline for a 0-param tool applies. The description correctly implies a no-argument call by never referencing any inputs.
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: checking remaining research allowance/credits before running expensive work. This is clearly distinguishable from the many sibling tools that consume credits (Keyword_Ideas, Competitor_Gap, SERP_Snapshot) by being the budget-check endpoint. An agent can tell what this does without opening the schema.
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 'Call this first before a large sweep across many keywords, competitors or pages, so you can budget the run rather than hitting the limit part-way through.' That is an unambiguous when-to-use trigger with the rationale, which is exactly what routing guidance should look like.
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.
