get_account
Return this account's spending caps and month-to-date spend. Free. Use it to confirm budget before create_gift.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Return this account's spending caps and month-to-date spend. Free. Use it to confirm budget before create_gift.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes output and mentions it's free, but doesn't disclose side effects, authentication, rate limits, or whether it's read-only. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and could be more transparent.
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, no wasted words. Purpose and usage guidance are front-loaded. Excellent conciseness.
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 no parameters and no output schema, the description provides key info: what it returns and a usage hint. Lacks detail on output structure, but sufficient for a simple tool.
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?
No parameters. Schema coverage is 100%, so the description doesn't need to add param info. Implicitly indicates a simple call.
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?
Clearly states it returns spending caps and month-to-date spend. Mentions connection to create_gift, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings. Still specific enough.
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?
Explicitly recommends using it before create_gift for budget confirmation. No exclusions or alternatives, but the clear use case provides good guidance.
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 has a clearly distinct purpose: gift lifecycle (create, get, cancel, list), account info, pricing, resource listings, and brief validation. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., create_gift, list_voices, validate_brief), making it predictable for agents.
12 tools is well-scoped for a gift ordering service, covering creation, retrieval, cancellation, pricing, account management, and resource listings without bloat.
The tool surface covers the full gift lifecycle and supporting operations (pricing, validation, account info, payment setup), with no obvious gaps for the intended domain.