Check your prepaid balance before a paid call. Shows the credit you have left to spend, anything on hold, any bonus credit and when it expires, whether the account is paused, the current pricing, and the deposit addresses on your account. It's free. If you run out, paid calls are turned away until you top up. To add a deposit address, sign in to the web dashboard.
| 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?
Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=true, so the bar is lower. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the operation is free, enumerating the account details surfaced, and explaining the consequence of running out of credit. The description is fully consistent with the read-only annotation.
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?
Four sentences, each earning its place: the trigger, the response contents, the cost/consequence, and the boundary for deposit addresses. It is slightly longer than necessary, but the field enumeration is informative rather than padding.
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 covers purpose, response contents, cost, and the consequence of a zero balance. It stops short of describing value formatting or data freshness, which would push it to a 5.
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 with 100% schema coverage, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description compensates by documenting the meaning of the returned information (spendable credit, hold, bonus credit, expiry, pause status, pricing, deposit addresses), which is the next most useful thing for an agent.
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?
States a specific verb-resource pair ('Check your prepaid balance') and enumerates the exact contents: spendable credit, held credit, bonus credit and expiry, pause status, current pricing, and deposit addresses. This is clearly distinct from siblings like get_usage and get_phase, which concern usage statistics and phase data.
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?
Gives an explicit trigger context ('before a paid call'), notes the call is free, and warns that paid calls are turned away when credit is exhausted. It also draws a boundary by directing deposit-address creation to the web dashboard, preventing misuse. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, though no sibling is a true substitute.
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 distinct role: account/billing tools (balance, usage, notifications, deposit poll) are clearly separated from market-data tools (single phase, batch phases, phase metadata, phase stats). Even get_phase and compose_phases are differentiated by single-coin/single-timeframe vs multi-coin/multi-timeframe, and the descriptions make that boundary explicit.
Most tools follow a get_ or verb_noun pattern (get_balance, get_phase, get_usage, compose_phases, deposit_poll), but 'phase_resolution_stats' breaks the pattern by lacking a verb, and 'compose_phases' vs 'get_phase' uses different verbs for closely related operations. The naming is still readable and predictable overall.
Eight tools is well-scoped for this server: four handle the paid signal-reading workflow and four handle account/billing support around it. There are no redundant or throwaway tools, and each one earns its place.
The server covers the full workflow: discover what phases exist and pricing (list_phase_meta), get current readings (get_phase/compose_phases), interpret them (phase_resolution_stats), and manage the prepaid account (get_balance, get_usage, get_notifications, deposit_poll). No obvious dead ends or missing operations for the stated purpose.