Check the current user's account status, billing, and usage. Returns plan info, API call count, the amount consumed this billing cycle in USD (amount_consumed_this_cycle_usd), whether a credit card is on file, and any failed/pending payments. Use this to diagnose why API calls are blocked (missing card or failed payment). Requires the user's API key in the Authorization header.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes return fields (plan info, API call count, amount consumed, credit card on file, failed payments) and requires user's API key in Authorization header. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden and handles it well.
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 succinct sentences: first states main purpose, second provides usage guidance. Every sentence adds value with 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?
Despite no output schema, description lists all key return values. For a tool with no parameters, this provides complete context for an agent to decide and invoke 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?
No parameters exist; schema coverage is 100%. Description does not need to add parameter info, meeting the baseline for zero-param tools.
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 the tool checks account status, billing, and usage with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_api_info and get_payment_url by focusing on user account billing details.
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 states when to use: to diagnose blocked API calls due to missing card or failed payment. Does not mention when not to use or provide alternatives, but the context is clear.
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 covering account management, catalog browsing, searching, API details, payment, and execution. No overlap in functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., browse_catalog, get_api_info, list_categories), with register being the only single verb but still clear.
8 tools is well-scoped for an API hub, covering registration, account status, catalog exploration, payment setup, and API calling without unnecessary bloat.
Core workflows (register, browse, search, get info, call) are covered. Minor gap: no tool for usage history or API key regeneration, but not essential for primary use.
