get_credit_balanceShows the credit balance of the user's workspace, credits spent today, and recent charges. Free; never spends credits. Use it when the user asks about credits, or before a search that would cost more than the balance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| balance | Yes | ||
| spentToday | Yes | ||
| recentCharges | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / properties / dailySpendCapRemoved value: -{
- "type": "number"
-}Output schema / properties / remainingTodayRemoved value: -{
- "type": "number"
-}Output schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "balance",
- "spentToday",
- "dailySpendCap",
- "remainingToday",
- "recentCharges"
-]New value: +[
+ "balance",
+ "spentToday",
+ "recentCharges"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the remaining burden is cost/latency behavior. The description usefully adds that the call is free and never spends credits, which is real decision-relevant context for a credit-gated toolset.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then the cost profile, then the trigger condition. No filler and nothing repeated from annotations or schema.
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?
An output schema exists and the parameter list is empty, so the description need only cover selection context, which it does fully. Nothing an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly is missing.
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 the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate or compensate for.
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 (Shows) and resource (credit balance) and enumerates the exact payload: balance, credits spent today, recent charges. The 'never spends credits' phrasing implicitly contrasts it with the buy_credits and run_* search siblings, so an agent can place it without opening the schema.
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 two explicit triggering conditions: when the user asks about credits, and before a search that would cost more than the balance. It does not name an alternative tool such as buy_credits or state a when-not, so it stops just short of the 5 bar.
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.