get_balancesПоказывает денежные ₽/$-кошельки и неиспользованные услуги RU или международного кабинета.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| geo | No | all |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the agent knows it is a safe read operation. The description adds that it shows wallets and unused services, but does not disclose further behavioral details like auth requirements or response specifics, which is acceptable given the annotations.
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?
A single, information-dense sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys what the tool shows and the geographic scope, earning high marks for conciseness.
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?
The tool is simple with one optional parameter and an output schema. The description covers the essential elements (wallets, unused services, geo scope), and the output schema handles return details, making the description sufficient.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. The description mentions 'RU or international cabinet,' which clarifies the meaning of the 'geo' parameter (ru/intl/all). This adds semantic value beyond the bare enum, though it could be more explicit.
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 verb 'shows' and the resource: money wallets (₽/$) and unused services. It also specifies the scope (RU or international cabinet), distinguishing it from sibling tools focused on orders, registrations, or links.
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 context is clear: this tool is for checking balances. While no explicit alternatives or when-not scenarios are mentioned, the purpose is self-evident and the sibling tools are distinct, so no exclusions are needed.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but a few pairs (check_registration vs get_account_profile, submit_link vs submit_order) overlap in scope. Descriptions clarify the differences (single vs bulk, status vs full profile), so confusion is limited.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (begin_registration, list_orders, update_link_draft). The only slight deviation is 'bulk_update_order_draft' with the 'bulk' modifier, but it still fits the overall pattern.
14 tools is well within the ideal range for a specialized service covering registration, orders, links, tariffs, and checkout. Each tool serves a distinct function without unnecessary bloat.
The core workflow (register, browse tariffs, manage order drafts, submit links) is well covered. Minor gaps like lack of explicit order creation or deletion are likely handled externally or via the checkout process, so agents can still complete key tasks.