Return remaining credits, plan, and spend.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_balance"
}
}| 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 supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only retrieval but never states that explicitly, nor does it say whose balance is returned (implicit auth context?), whether values are live or cached, or what units the credits/spend use. For a zero-annotation tool this leaves meaningful behavioral gaps.
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?
A single short sentence with the returned fields front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized for a trivial getter, though the phrasing is terse enough that it borders on under-specification rather than crispness.
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 tool is simple (zero params, no output schema), and the description usefully enumerates the three returned values, which substitutes for the missing output schema. However, it omits any guidance on when the agent should call it and gives no sense of value format or scope, leaving it only minimally complete.
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 explain; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly requires no argument details and does not waste space on them.
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 gives a concrete verb ("Return") and enumerates the specific resources returned: remaining credits, plan, and spend. An agent knows exactly what data this tool surfaces. It stops short of distinguishing itself from siblings like list_pricing or get_payment_info, which also touch billing/account data.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., authentication or account context), and no routing to alternatives such as list_pricing for plan pricing versus this tool for the current plan. The agent must infer call timing entirely.
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.