Check how many transcription credits the given email address has on onesteptranscribe.com. Each transcription costs one credit. Optional: prepare_upload already checks this for you before starting.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | The customer's email address. Results are sent here. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description clarifies that the tool is a read-only check (no destructive effects) and that each transcription costs one credit. It does not mention rate limits or auth, but the behavior is simple and adequately covered.
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?
The description is two sentences long, with the primary purpose in the first sentence and optional context in the second. No redundant information is present.
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?
The description is sufficient for a simple read-check tool with one parameter and no output schema. However, it does not describe what the tool returns (the number of credits), which would be helpful for the agent.
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 input schema fully describes the 'email' parameter with format and pattern. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 verb 'Check' and the resource 'transcription credits' for a given email address, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes from siblings by noting that prepare_upload already performs this check.
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 hints that prepare_upload might make this tool redundant, but it does not explicitly state when to use check_credits versus alternatives like buy_credits or start_transcription. The guidance is minimal and implied.
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.
Each tool serves a clear, non-overlapping purpose: credit purchase, credit check, upload preparation, and transcription start. No ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (buy_credits, check_credits, prepare_upload, start_transcription) using underscores.
Four tools perfectly cover the core workflow (credit management + upload/transcript) without unnecessary extras.
The workflow is covered end-to-end, but there is no tool to poll transcription status or retrieve results (they are emailed). This minor gap could be addressed with a status tool.
