movoa-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the result is time-dependent, with the video URL appearing only 'when it is ready', telling the agent that a missing URL means still-running rather than failure.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the core action and ending on the conditional return value. Nothing is padded and nothing essential is buried.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns; it names status and video URL but does not enumerate possible status values or say what happens for failed/expired runs. Adequate to invoke, incomplete for interpreting results.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single run_id parameter is already documented as 'the run id returned by generate_video'. The description reinforces that provenance but adds no format, validation, or reuse guidance beyond the schema.

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 (read) and resource (the status of a run), and ties it to the originating tool generate_video. An agent can distinguish it immediately from generate_video (which creates the run) and credits.

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?

Clearly positions the tool as the follow-up to generate_video, implying the call-after-generation workflow. It stops short of explicitly saying to poll repeatedly until completion or what to do while the run is pending, so no exclusions or alternatives are named.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the balance is tied to the API key's account and that calls are free, which is useful behavioral context, but it does not mention rate limits, response shape, or freshness of the balance.

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?

The description is two short sentences and is front-loaded with the core result: credits remaining. The second sentence adds a useful behavioral note without waste.

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 zero-parameter read-only balance check with no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it identifies the account scope, the value returned conceptually, and the cost of calling. It could say more about the response format or unit, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden on the description. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not create confusion about inputs.

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 states a specific resource and scope: the credits left on the Movoa account behind the caller's API key. That is clear enough to distinguish it from check_status and generate_video, but it does not explicitly name or differentiate against those siblings.

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 says the tool is 'Free to call,' which is useful context, but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus check_status or other sibling tools. There are no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite statements.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Goes well beyond the annotations (which only say it's non-readonly and open-world): it discloses that runs cost credits at a linked pricing page, that generation takes minutes, and that the call is asynchronous returning a run id. These are exactly the traits an agent needs to set expectations and avoid retry storms.

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?

Front-loaded with the primary action, then the photo-to-video variant, then cost and latency. Three tight sentences with no filler.

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, and the description compensates by explaining the return value (a run id) and the required next step (check_status). Cost, latency, defaults, and both input modes are all covered, so an agent has everything needed to invoke and follow up.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so per-parameter meaning, enums, and duration constraints are already documented. The description restates the default model and resolution, which the schema's model field description already covers, so it adds little beyond the structured data.

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 and resource ("Generate a video clip with sound from a text prompt") and explicitly covers the second mode ("animate a photo by passing image_url"). An agent can tell exactly what this produces without opening the schema.

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?

Gives concrete selection context: default model/resolution, the image_url switch for photo-to-video, and the follow-up step ("poll with check_status") that routes to a sibling. It stops short of stating when NOT to use this tool (e.g., vs. an image tool or the credits sibling), so it's clear context rather than full when/when-not coverage.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.