get_credit_balanceFree. Return this connection owner's prepaid balance and the existing purchase URL. No model calls.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_credit_balance"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and non-open-world, so the safety bar is covered. The description adds context the annotations do not carry: the call is free and consumes no model calls, and it is scoped to the current connection's owner rather than an arbitrary account. It omits what happens when no balance or purchase URL exists, which keeps it below a 5.
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?
Three short sentences, zero filler, with the cost signal front-loaded before the return description. 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?
For a zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description does the essential work of naming what comes back (balance and purchase URL) so the agent knows how to use the response. Missing only edge-case behavior such as an unconfigured or zero balance, which is minor at this complexity.
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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter prose, avoiding noise.
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?
"Return this connection owner's prepaid balance and the existing purchase URL" names a specific verb (return) and two concrete resources, with an explicit scope (this connection owner's). It is unmistakable against siblings like estimate_cost or get_job_status, which address different concerns. It stops short of a 5 only because no sibling is named as an alternative or boundary.
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?
"Free" and "No model calls" tell an agent this is a safe, zero-cost check to make before a paid operation, which implies usage. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no exclusion or alternative named, so the guidance remains inferred rather than stated.
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.