get_usageGet current API usage and quota status
Returns the current period's API guide usage, quota limit, remaining count and the renewal date. Aligned on the Stripe subscription billing cycle. Does not consume credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
States 'Does not consume credits' which is a behavioral trait, but no annotations provided. Missing details on authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens on quota exceeded. For a tool with no annotations, more behavioral context is needed.
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 short sentences, purpose first, no extraneous content. Perfectly concise for a simple read tool.
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?
Describes return values (usage, limit, remaining, renewal) and billing cycle alignment. Lacks output schema but given low complexity, it is sufficiently complete. Could mention data types or example.
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, so schema coverage is 100%. Description adds no parameter info, but baseline for 0 parameters is 4.
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?
Describes getting API usage and quota, listing specific fields (usage, limit, remaining, renewal). Clearly distinct from general 'get' tools but doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_credits or get_tokens_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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites or when to prefer it over similar tools like get_credits.
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.
Most tools target distinct resources (guides, eeat, intent, internal_links, meta, outline, score, credits, tokens). However, some pairs like create_eeat and create_eeat_competitors are very similar and could cause confusion, though their descriptions clarify the difference.
Tools consistently use a verb_noun pattern (create_, get_, delete_). Minor inconsistencies include 'get_aissistant_tokens' (typo) and 'get_credit_ledger' (singular vs plural), but overall the pattern is clear.
28 tools is on the higher end but justifiable for a comprehensive SEO analysis platform covering guides, multiple AI features, EEAT, credits, and tokens. A few tools could be merged (e.g., get_credits and get_aissistant_tokens), but the count is still reasonable.
The tool surface covers CRUD for guides and most AI features, plus token/credit management. A notable gap is the lack of a get_score tool after create_score, and some features like updating EEAT analysis are absent. Overall, the core workflows are supported.