Show this account's pending (unpaid, non-refunded) royalty balance and whether it clears the minimum for the monthly batch payout. Read-only — does not move any money. Use when an author asks 'how much am I owed' or 'when do I get paid'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it does well by stating 'Read-only — does not move any money.' It also clarifies the data scope with 'pending (unpaid, non-refunded)' and adds context about the 'monthly batch payout' minimum, giving useful behavioral details beyond the tool's name.
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 sentences: the first defines the core purpose, and the second provides usage guidance and a safety note. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words.
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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains what is shown (pending balance, minimum clearance) and when to use it. It could be more explicit about the exact return format, but the essential context is covered, making it fairly complete for this simple tool.
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 is fully descriptive. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when there are no parameters, and the description does not need to explain parameter semantics.
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 uses a specific verb 'Show' with a clear resource: 'this account's pending (unpaid, non-refunded) royalty balance' and an additional condition about clearing the monthly minimum. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_my_payouts (historical payouts) and annotation_earnings (specific earnings).
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?
It explicitly states 'Use when an author asks "how much am I owed" or "when do I get paid"', providing clear context for when to invoke the tool. However, it does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.