See YOUR current usage + remaining allowance so you can self-govern spend: snapbacks (diagnoses) used/cap/remaining, guard checks used/cap/remaining, estimated spend, % used, and when it resets. Call it periodically to avoid surprises. Token-scoped, free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "description": "A JSON object (returned as text in result.content[0].text). Diagnosis tools return {matched, family, fix, confidence, source, action_class, auto_safe, gate}; other tools return their own JSON result.",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world. The description adds useful non-structured context: it is token-scoped (per-caller visibility) and free (no cost impact). It does not discuss caching, rate limits, or freshness of the figures, so it is strong but not exhaustive.
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 front-loaded sentence covering what it returns, followed by a short usage cue and a scope/cost tag. Every clause earns its place; 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?
Output schema exists, so return structure is already defined, yet the description's enumeration of metrics gives an agent enough to decide relevance. Combined with annotations and the token-scoped/free note, nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.
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 there is no schema semantics to compensate for; the baseline for a 0-param tool applies. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter language.
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?
Names a specific resource ('YOUR current usage + remaining allowance') and enumerates the concrete contents (snapbacks, guard checks, spend, % used, reset time). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like budget_guard or my_impact without opening any 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?
Explicitly advises 'Call it periodically to avoid surprises' and frames the purpose as self-governing spend, which is clear context. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating when-not to use it, so it misses the top bar.
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.