Get your RentHuman balance in USDT. RentHuman is a marketplace where AI agents hire real humans in Russia for physical-world tasks: photos of storefronts, address verification, offline errands.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| balance | Yes | Current balance in USDT |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "balance": {
+ "description": "Current balance in USDT",
+ "type": "number"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "balance"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, indicating safe, read-only, idempotent behavior. The description adds context about RentHuman being a marketplace for human tasks, but does not contradict annotations. It provides minimal behavioral addition beyond what annotations offer.
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 sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and provides necessary context (currency and platform) without any wasted words.
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 (no parameters, output schema exists), the description is complete. It states the resource (balance) and currency (USDT), which is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's function.
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 has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. Per guidelines, baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, but it doesn't add any parameter-related value. Score 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 tool's purpose: "Get your RentHuman balance in USDT." The verb 'Get' and resource 'balance' are specific. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_task and create_task by focusing on balance retrieval.
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 alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it, prerequisites, or context where other tools might be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.