Get AskAIs API balance
get_balanceReturn the remaining prepaid AskAIs API credit for the connected account.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | No | Optional after create_free_account succeeds in this MCP session. |
get_balanceReturn the remaining prepaid AskAIs API credit for the connected account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | No | Optional after create_free_account succeeds in this MCP session. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether the call consumes credit, requires authentication, or handles missing accounts. Minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation.
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?
Single sentence, no wasted words, immediately clear.
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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned and for which account. Could mention return format but not necessary.
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?
Description adds value over the schema by noting the api_key parameter is 'Optional after create_free_account succeeds'. Schema coverage is 100% but description provides practical context.
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 verb 'Return' and the resource 'remaining prepaid AskAIs API credit', and differentiates from siblings like create_free_account and generate_receipt.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., after account creation or before API calls). The purpose is implied but not stated.
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 clear, distinct purpose: account creation, receipt generation, balance checking, and rules reading. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case: create_free_account, generate_receipt, get_balance, get_usage_rules.
With 4 tools, the set is appropriately scoped for a receipt generation service, covering account management, generation, balance, and rules.
The core workflow is covered (account, generation, balance, rules), but missing features like viewing past receipts or deleting accounts are minor gaps.