Check the remaining API credit balance on the key in use (100 credits = $1.00). Requires an x-api-key.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully discloses the auth requirement ('Requires an x-api-key') and the unit conversion (100 credits = $1.00), but says nothing about whether the call itself consumes credits, rate limits, or what the response shape looks like.
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?
Two short sentences, zero waste: the first front-loads what the tool does and its scope, the second front-loads the auth prerequisite and unit scale. Nothing could be removed without losing information.
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 read tool with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, scope, auth requirement, and credit-to-dollar units. The only gap is that it does not describe the returned value's form (e.g., a numeric credit count), which is minor given the tool's simplicity.
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 parameter meaning to convey and the baseline is a 4. The description correctly adds no parameter prose, keeping focus on scope and units.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('Check the remaining API credit balance') and names the exact scope ('on the key in use'), so an agent knows precisely what is returned. It does not name a sibling, but the sibling tools (company screening, contract search) are unrelated, so no confusion is plausible.
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: an agent infers it should call this before or after paid calls to monitor credits. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or mention of any alternative, though the zero-parameter read nature makes the intent fairly unambiguous.
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.