get_accountReturn the account profile for the current API key: email, name, company, timezone, remaining credits, total credits used, number of API keys, and plan. Costs no credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It states the tool costs no credits and returns profile info, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly confirm no side effects or auth requirements, though those are implied.
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: one describing purpose and output, one noting credit cost. No wasted words, front-loaded with the key action.
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 simple read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, and its cost, leaving no gaps.
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 and schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds value by listing what the tool returns (email, name, etc.), which is sufficient for a parameterless tool.
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 explicitly states it returns the account profile for the current API key and lists specific fields (email, name, etc.), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like get_credits or get_usage.
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?
The description mentions 'Costs no credits' which implies safe usage, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_credits or get_usage for related info.
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. Overlaps like verify_batch vs submit_bulk are explicitly differentiated by synchronous vs asynchronous behavior. Extraction, cleaning, verification, and management tools are well-separated.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., register_account, verify_email, get_job_status). There is no mixing of conventions or vague verbs.
15 tools cover the domain of email verification and account management without redundancy. Each tool fills a specific role—single verification, batch sync, bulk async, job polling, results retrieval, list cleaning, extraction, domain health, credit purchasing, and account management.
The tool set provides complete lifecycle coverage: account registration, usage tracking, credit purchase, email verification (single, batch, bulk with async), job management, list cleaning, email extraction, and domain health checks. No obvious gaps for the intended functionality.