Check this operator's tax balance at the Authority.
Returns the sats available for certifying patron credit purchases. When this balance reaches zero, patron top-ups cannot be certified and the operator must call purchase_credits on the Authority.
This is the operator's own funding — not a patron balance. Free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses return value (sats), ownership (operator's own funding), and cost (free). However, it does not explicitly state read-only nature or any authorization requirements, though implied by context.
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 concise (4 sentences) with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with purpose, then return value, consequence, and clarification. Every sentence adds value.
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?
Given no parameters and presence of output schema, the description sufficiently explains purpose, return value, and usage context (including when to use another tool). Complete for agent decision-making.
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?
No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter meaning. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate given the absence of 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?
The description clearly states the tool checks the operator's tax balance at the Authority, returns sats for certifying patron purchases, and distinguishes from patron balances. It uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('authority balance').
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 explains when to use (to check operator's tax balance) and what happens when balance is zero (call purchase_credits). It also notes it's free. It does not explicitly exclude other tools but provides actionable context.
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.