orb_get_customer_creditsGet a customer's credit balances by currency. Orb API: GET /customers/{customer_id}/credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| currency | No | Filter to a single currency. | |
| customer_id | Yes | Orb customer id. | |
| include_all_blocks | No | Include expired/depleted blocks too. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'by currency' scoping behavior and endpoint, but discloses no other behavioral traits such as default block filtering or response shape.
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 with no filler; the core purpose is front-loaded and the endpoint line provides precise context. 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?
For a read-only GET with full schema coverage this is mostly adequate, but the output format is not described (no output schema exists), and the distinction from the credits-ledger sibling is left implicit. Those are notable gaps for an agent deciding whether this call satisfies a credit-related request.
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 clear descriptions for all three parameters, so the schema carries the parameter documentation burden. The description only paraphrases the currency dimension and adds no additional parameter meaning.
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 and resource: 'Get a customer's credit balances by currency' and gives the exact Orb endpoint. It is clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similarly named sibling orb_get_customer_credits_ledger.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives such as orb_get_customer_credits_ledger or orb_get_customer_costs. There are no use-case conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites.
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.
Every tool name clearly specifies a distinct action and resource (e.g., list_subscriptions vs get_subscription). There is no ambiguity between tools as each targets a unique combination of verb and noun.
All tool names follow a consistent pattern: 'orb_<verb>_<resource>' in snake_case. This makes them predictable and easy to distinguish.
With 26 tools, the set covers many resources and operations for a billing platform. While slightly above typical range, each tool justifies its existence given the domain complexity.
The tool surface provides extensive read capabilities and basic customer CRUD, but lacks create/update/delete for most other resources (e.g., subscriptions, invoices) and missing operations like void or cancel. This creates notable gaps for full lifecycle management.