Returns the caller's remaining Curagent credit balance and tier. Call this before analyzing to confirm available usage. Sandbox tier includes 3 free analyses total, not a recurring allowance; paid tiers use 1 credit per analysis.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavioral details beyond a simple balance lookup: sandbox tier has a total of 3 free analyses not recurring, and paid tiers consume 1 credit per analysis. This prevents the agent from assuming the balance refreshes monthly and clarifies the relationship between credits and analyses.
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 three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core result (balance and tier), immediately states when to call it, and then adds only the necessary pricing nuance. Every sentence earns its 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?
With no parameters and no output schema, the description is fully sufficient for an agent to understand what this tool does and when to invoke it. It explains the return content, the trigger condition, and the credit accounting rules that the agent needs to interpret the result correctly.
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 the schema provides no meaningful parameter surface and the baseline is 4. The description adds useful context about how credits are consumed even though it doesn't need to document specific 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 clearly states the tool's function: returning the caller's remaining Curagent credit balance and tier. It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like analyze_title_documents and check_coverage, as it is a read-only balance lookup rather than an analysis or coverage check.
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 explicitly tells the agent to call this before analyzing to confirm available usage, which is clear situational guidance. It does not discuss when not to use it or mention alternatives, but given the tool's unique purpose this is sufficient.
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 clearly distinct purpose: coverage lookup, credit balance check, and title document analysis. The descriptions explicitly delineate responsibilities, and there is no meaningful overlap that could cause an agent to pick the wrong tool.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: analyze_title_documents, check_coverage, get_credit_balance. The naming is predictable and makes the function of each tool immediately clear.
Three tools is well-scoped for this server's purpose: one core analysis tool and two lightweight preflight utilities. Each tool earns its place, and the count appropriately supports the workflow without unnecessary bulk.
The tool surface fully covers the intended workflow: confirm coverage, verify credit balance, then run the analysis. No obvious gaps exist for the stated domain of Florida title risk assessment, and the supporting preflight tools eliminate dead ends.
