Check how many marketplace credits your API key has (in cents) for buying paid sermon access, plus your tier and daily rate limit. Top-ups are done via the topup API action or the SoapBox developer portal.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context about what the balance represents (marketplace credits in cents), the inclusion of tier and rate limit in the response, and the location of top-up functionality, going beyond the annotation safety profile.
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 concise, front-loaded sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose and return content; the second adds relevant operational context about top-ups. No unnecessary words.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description responsibly describes what the caller receives (credit balance in cents, tier, daily rate limit). It also covers the related top-up action, making the tool's role within the system clear. Fully adequate for a parameterless read-only tool.
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 there is no need for parameter explanation. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on return values rather than parameters.
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?
Clearly states the verb 'Check' and the resource 'marketplace credits' with specifics: amount in cents, tier, and daily rate limit. Distinguishes from siblings by focusing on balance for buying sermon access.
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?
Explicitly states that top-ups are done via the topup API action or portal, clearly implying this tool is only for checking balance and not for topping up. This provides a clear alternative and when-to-use guidance.
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.
Every tool targets a distinct action and resource: ask_ora is for Q&A, get_verse for exact verse lookup, verify_scripture for quote checking, lookup_strongs for lexicon entries, and so on. Any potential overlap (e.g., ask_ora vs get_verse) is explicitly addressed in the descriptions.
All tool names consistently use a verb_noun or verb_prep_noun pattern (e.g., get_verse, search_sermons, submit_prayer_request, pay_with_x402). No mixing of casing or verb styles is present.
At 19 tools, the set feels heavy. While each tool has a distinct purpose, the breadth spans scripture, sermons, prayers, giving, churches, user context, and audio synthesis. Some functions could be consolidated (e.g., purchase_sermon and purchase_bundle into a single purchase action) or split into separate services.
Core workflows are well-covered: discovery, purchase, prayer submission/status, giving, church lookup, and Bible study. However, there are minor gaps such as no way to update or delete prayer requests, no list of previously purchased items, and no general user profile beyond faith context. These are workable but prevent full lifecycle management.