whoamiReturn your handle, email address, webhook base URL, current balance and quota usage. Free.
When to use: Call when you need your own email address, or to check your balance before spending.
Price: Free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the call is free and returns balance/quota info, which is useful context beyond the annotation, but it doesn't mention details like rate limits or whether the returned balance is cached. Given the annotation coverage, a 3 is appropriate.
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 short and front-loaded with the return value list. The only waste is the duplicate 'Free' mention: 'Free.' appears as its own sentence and again under 'Price: Free.' This is minor redundancy, not enough to drop below 4.
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-only tool, this description is complete. It names all the important return fields, states that it is free, and gives a clear trigger condition. No output schema exists, so the description's list of returned data adequately covers what an agent needs to know.
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 the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it doesn't introduce any confusion about arguments. It focuses on return values, which is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and names the exact resources returned: handle, email address, webhook base URL, balance, and quota usage. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like identity_create (creation) and credit_deposit (balance top-up).
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?
There is an explicit 'When to use' section telling the agent to call when it needs its own email address or needs to check balance before spending. It doesn't name alternatives, but the tool's purpose is self-evident and the context provided is clear enough.
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 addresses a distinct resource or action: memory operations are clearly separated from inbox operations, await/park/resume are differentiated by whether the process stays alive or hands off state, and administrative calls like capabilities, whoami, and credit_deposit have non-overlapping purposes. No two tools appear interchangeable.
Most resource operations follow an object_verb pattern (memory_get, hook_create, inbox_list), but core primitives like await, park, resume, and signal are bare verbs, while capabilities and whoami are bare nouns. The style is consistently lowercase snake_case and readable, but the naming convention is mixed rather than uniform.
At 16 tools the set is just past the typical well-scoped range, but each tool maps to a distinct platform capability: identity, inbox, memory, hooks/signals, parking, and billing. It feels slightly heavy rather than bloated.
The core agent workflow is covered end to end: identity creation, credit deposit, hook creation, awaiting triggers, inbox reading, durable memory, and the park/resume round-trip. Minor gaps remain—there is no hook list/delete and no way to cancel a parked state—but they can be worked around rather than blocking.