Guthaben-Konto abfragen (Kostendeckel für kostenpflichtige KI-Calls). Das Konto mit 1 € Startgutschein wird beim ersten kostenpflichtigen Call ausgestellt und dort zurückgegeben — merken und künftig mitschicken. Kostenlose Funktionen brauchen kein Konto.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account_id | No | Bestehendes Konto (optional). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses an important behavioral trait: the account is automatically created with a €1 voucher on the first paid call and the account_id is returned in that response, to be remembered and sent in future calls. This goes beyond a simple 'query balance' statement and provides actionable context about the account lifecycle.
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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the main action. Each sentence earns its place: the first states what the tool does and its purpose, the second explains the account lifecycle and how to use the parameter. No wasted words.
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?
Given the simple scope (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately covers purpose, usage context, and parameter semantics. It does not explicitly describe the return value, but the tool name 'account_balance' strongly implies the response is a balance. The account lifecycle details make it reasonably 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 schema provides 100% coverage for account_id with 'Bestehendes Konto (optional)'. The description adds crucial meaning: the account_id originates from the response of a paid call and should be remembered and sent along for future paid calls. This explains the parameter's role beyond the schema's generic 'existing account' label.
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 'Guthaben-Konto abfragen' (query account balance), a specific verb+resource, and adds context about it serving as a cost cap for paid AI calls. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling account_topup, which is for topping up rather than querying balance.
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?
It explains that free functions don't need an account and that the account is issued on first paid call, which implies when this balance query is relevant. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state 'use this when', but the context is clear enough for an agent to determine appropriate usage.
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.
Every tool targets a distinct action and resource: fax, brief, envelope, template, account, etc. There is no noticeable overlap; even fill_pdf and fill_template are clearly differentiated by type of PDF.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores (e.g., account_balance, fax_confirm, search_templates). No mixing of conventions or irregular styles.
With 33 tools, the server covers multiple subdomains (PDF, fax, postal, signatures, templates). This is on the higher side but still reasonable for a comprehensive document processing server. However, it could benefit from consolidation.
The tool surface covers core document workflows: fill, sign, scan, fax, mail, template exploration, and account management. Minor gaps exist (e.g., PDF merging or splitting), but most user journeys are supported.
