get_account_statusCheck the remaining credits, plan and rate limit for the connected AgentFetch API account. Use before large batches of fetches.
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": "get_account_status"
}
}| 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?
Annotations already declare a safe, non-open read, and the description adds the substance of what is returned (credits, plan, rate limit), which the agent cannot get from structured fields since there is no output schema. It does not cover what happens on an unauthenticated or expired key, which is a minor gap for a status probe.
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 filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the usage trigger second. 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?
With no output schema, the description correctly summarizes the key returned fields and pairs them with an actionable trigger. For a zero-parameter read tool this is close to sufficient; only error/empty-state behavior is unmentioned.
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 argument meaning to add; baseline 4 applies. The description sensibly spends its space on return content instead of inventing inputs.
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 ('Check') and resource (the connected AgentFetch API account) and names the three returned values: remaining credits, plan, and rate limit. It is clearly distinct from a content-fetching sibling, though it does not name any alternative explicitly.
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 a concrete trigger — 'Use before large batches of fetches' — which tells the agent when to reach for this tool rather than simply proceeding. It stops short of stating any when-not-to-use condition or an alternative path.
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.