orb_list_metricsList billable metrics configured in the Orb account. Orb API: GET /metrics.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max items to return (1–100, default 20). | |
| cursor | No | Opaque pagination cursor (from pagination_metadata.next_cursor). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates that this is a safe read operation, and the description adds the concrete API reference 'GET /metrics,' which is consistent with that. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, API rate limits, or the shape of the returned data beyond what the schema implies.
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 short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the API endpoint reference is compact and useful without duplicating schema 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 simple list operation with no required parameters, readOnlyHint, and fully documented pagination parameters, the description is nearly sufficient. The main gap is that it does not explain the expected response shape or pagination metadata, though this is a minor omission given the tool's low complexity.
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 description coverage is 100%, with limit and cursor both documented in the input schema. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, but because the schema fully covers the parameters, the baseline of 3 applies.
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: 'List billable metrics configured in the Orb account.' This clearly identifies the operation and resource type, distinguishing it from other list_* siblings by name. It does not explicitly compare against a sibling tool, but the resource is 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many orb_list_* alternatives, and no prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned. Selection is left entirely to the tool name and inferred intent, which is not enough for a tool in a large family of list tools.
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.