ratchet_usageReturns the current plan, remaining included effects for the month, prepaid credit balance, and today's declared external spend against each budget ceiling. Use it to warn a user before a long run exhausts an allowance or a budget.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds contextual detail about monthly and daily scoping of the returned data, which is helpful, but it does not reveal substantial behavioral traits beyond what the annotations already establish.
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 sentences with no filler. The return details are front-loaded, and the usage guidance follows immediately. Every sentence earns its place.
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 complete for a parameterless read-only tool. It enumerates all relevant output categories, gives a practical usage scenario, and the annotations cover the safety profile. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently conveys what the agent will receive.
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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics because none exist, and it appropriately focuses entirely on what the tool returns.
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 a specific verb ('Returns') and enumerates the exact resources returned: current plan, remaining included effects, prepaid credit balance, and declared external spend. It is clear and unambiguous, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as ratchet_check_effect or ratchet_list_effects.
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 gives a concrete use case: 'Use it to warn a user before a long run exhausts an allowance or a budget.' This provides clear context for when to invoke the tool, but it does not mention when not to use it or point to alternatives.
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.
Most tools map to clearly distinct lifecycle phases (begin/report/resolve/heartbeat) and are strongly described, but recall, group_status, and list_effects all deal with looking up past effect or workflow state and could be confused when resuming work. The use-case guidance in the descriptions mostly disambiguates them, so this is a minor rather than systemic issue.
All tools share the ratchet_ prefix and snake_case, which gives a strong predictable family feel. However, some names follow verb_noun (begin_effect, resolve_effect) while others are noun phrases (effect_receipts, group_status, prevented_loss), so the pattern is consistent in style but not in grammatical form.
Fifteen tools is at the upper end of the ideal range, but the domain is broad enough to justify every entry: effect lifecycle, lease maintenance, state inspection, circuit breakers, policies, receipts, reconciliation, rollback, and usage. Each tool fills a distinct role with no obvious redundancy.
The surface covers the full idempotency and safety lifecycle: authorize, execute, report, heartbeat, recover from indeterminate outcomes, verify with receipts, reconcile vendor truth, roll back multi-step work, and monitor budgets and policies. There are no dead ends or missing operations that would strand an agent in this domain.