get_balanceRemaining balance on your Store API key, in rubles. — Остаток средств на ключе в рублях.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| top_up_url | No | ||
| balance_rub | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "balance_rub": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "top_up_url": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the contextual detail that the balance is reported in rubles and is a remaining amount, but it does not disclose staleness, update behavior, or failure characteristics.
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 extremely compact and front-loaded: it immediately states the balance and currency. The Russian repetition mirrors the English rather than adding noise, and every piece of content 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 read-only, zero-parameter balance-check tool with an output schema and readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description is complete. Nothing else is needed for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.
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 there is nothing for the description to explain. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, the description does not need to compensate for schema gaps and correctly introduces no nonexistent parameters.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Remaining balance on your Store API key' with the unit 'in rubles'. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and semantically distinct from sibling tools like get_usage, which concern usage rather than remaining funds.
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 given about when to choose this tool over alternatives. In particular, the sibling get_usage could plausibly overlap with balance/account-status questions, and the description does not explain the difference or provide any usage context.
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.