check_balanceCheck the remaining apifare prepaid credit balance (1 credit = $0.01) and get the top-up link.
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": "check_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 declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and a closed world, so safety is covered by structured data. The description still adds non-obvious context: the credit-to-dollar conversion (1 credit = $0.01) and that the response includes a top-up link, which is not derivable from any structured field.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the essential action, the unit definition and the return value all earn their place.
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 parameterless read-only tool the description is nearly sufficient: it defines the unit and discloses the returned top-up link despite there being no output schema. It omits only edge context such as what happens on auth failure or a zero balance.
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 takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing parameter-wise for the description to clarify.
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 names a specific verb and resource ('Check the remaining apifare prepaid credit balance') and adds the credit unit, so an agent immediately knows what it returns. It hints at the relation to the 'topup' sibling via the top-up link but never explicitly states how it differs from that tool.
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: checking balance is obviously relevant before spending credits or before calling 'topup', but the description never says when to use this versus 'topup' or 'call_api'. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.
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.