sqlguard_balanceCheck prepaid credit balance (legacy volume). For production authorize use sqlguard_challenge — not prepaid micro.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | Yes | Agent or wallet id whose prepaid credit balance to read |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| credits | No | Remaining prepaid credits | |
| agent_id | No | Normalized agent id |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context about the tool being for legacy volume and explicitly not for production authorize, which goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
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 concise sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and uses the second sentence for essential usage differentiation. Every word earns its place.
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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema present, annotations covering safety), the description fully addresses purpose, scope, and alternatives. The output schema handles return details, so no further explanation is needed.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, with the single parameter agent_id described as 'Agent or wallet id whose prepaid credit balance to read.' The description adds no extra parameter details, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 specific action and resource: 'Check prepaid credit balance (legacy volume).' It also distinguishes itself from sibling tool sqlguard_challenge by noting that tool is for production authorize, making the purpose unambiguous.
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?
Explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool vs. alternatives: 'For production authorize use sqlguard_challenge — not prepaid micro.' This clearly states when not to use this tool and names the preferred alternative.
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.
The tool set is dominated by overlapping buy/unlock paths (challenge, pilot, buy, catalog, cert, session, workday, sprint, profit, handshake) that are poorly differentiated, with many marked as legacy or off-table. Only a few tools (bind, gate, verify, effects) have clearly distinct roles.
All tools share the sqlguard_ prefix, but the second part is a mix of nouns, verbs, and vague branding (gravity, profit, sprint, handshake). There is no consistent verb_noun pattern, making it hard to predict a tool's purpose from its name.
24 tools is heavy for a permission gateway, and many are redundant legacy or alternative buy paths. While the count is within the 16-25 borderline range, the core functionality could likely be served by 8-10 tools.
The core authorization flow (handshake → challenge/unlock → bind/gate → verify) is present, but the surface is muddied by legacy and alternative paths that create dead ends. Missing tools for managing denials or configuring policies leave some gaps, though the central lifecycle is covered.