FREE: your SibFly credit balance, price per report, reports remaining, and top-up URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| top_up_url | No | ||
| credits_usd | No | ||
| price_per_report_usd | No | ||
| reports_remaining_est | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds context that the operation is free and lists the returned fields, going beyond the annotation. However, it doesn't disclose any other behavioral traits like rate limits or authentication needs, but those are minimal for a read tool with no parameters.
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 sentence that is front-loaded with 'FREE' and clearly lists all returned items. No wasted words, every element 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?
For a tool with no parameters and an existing output schema, the description is adequate. It explains the resource and key outputs. However, it could mention any prerequisites or authentication, but those might be inferred from context. The tool is simple, so completeness is high.
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 schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds value by explaining the output, which is beyond what the empty schema provides. Baseline for 0 params is 4.
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 it returns SibFly credit balance, price per report, reports remaining, and top-up URL. This is a specific verb (get) and resource (account info), and it distinguishes from sibling tools like buy_credits or get_usage.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_usage or check_portfolio. The 'FREE' label hints at cost implications but does not explicitly state when or when not to use it.
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 targets a distinct function: account management, ground motion queries, batch processing, history, and Q&A. No two tools serve overlapping purposes, and descriptions clearly differentiate them.
Most tools use a 'verb_noun' pattern with verbs like get, register, buy, check, ask. However, 'check' is used for two tools (check_ground_motion, check_portfolio) while similar retrieval tools use 'get' (get_motion_history), creating a slight inconsistency in verb choice.
With 9 tools, the server covers account setup, credit management, ground motion queries (single, batch, history), and follow-up Q&A—a well-scoped set that earns each tool's place.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle: account creation (register_agent), credit purchasing (buy_credits), balance/usage (get_account, get_usage), coverage checks (get_coverage), ground motion queries (check_ground_motion, check_portfolio), motion history (get_motion_history), and post-purchase Q&A (ask_inspector). No obvious gaps.
