get_balanceShow the plan, remaining credits, rate limit (requests per minute) and plan expiry of the API key in use. Free.
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_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 cover read-only and closed-world safety, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: it reports on the API key in use (so no key or account argument is needed) and that the call is 'Free' (does not consume credits). It stops short of noting any rate limiting on the balance call itself or whether the reported window is rolling or fixed.
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?
One front-loaded sentence carries the full return contract, with the cost property isolated as a trailing 'Free.' fragment that is easy to scan. No filler or repetition.
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?
A zero-parameter read-only status tool with no output schema, so the description must name the return fields — and it does, listing plan, remaining credits, rate limit in requests per minute, and plan expiry. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.
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?
There are zero parameters, which sets a baseline of 4. The phrase 'of the API key in use' usefully explains why no key parameter exists, pre-empting an agent from searching for one.
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?
States a specific verb ('Show') and resource (the plan/credits/rate limit/expiry of the API key in use), and even enumerates the exact fields returned. An agent knows precisely what this tool yields without opening any schema. The sibling tools listed are unrelated content/media tools, so no differentiation burden applies.
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?
Usage is only implied: the tool is a cheap status check on the calling key, and 'in use' signals it needs no arguments. There is no explicit when-to-call guidance, no statement that it should be preferred over inferring quota from error responses, and no exclusions. Adequate but leaves the trigger condition to inference.
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.