ucode_credit_gift_breakdownFree-credit badges / gift breakdown.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| code | No | ||
| data | No | ||
| error | No | ||
| phone | No | ||
| uiView | No | ||
| credits | No | ||
| endDate | No | ||
| smsCode | No | ||
| summary | Yes | ||
| rentalId | No | ||
| billingUrl | No | ||
| httpStatus | No | ||
| countryName | No | ||
| phoneNumber | No | ||
| serviceName | No | ||
| neededCredits | No | ||
| providerRentalId | No | ||
| remainingSeconds | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds minimal behavioral context ('badges' and 'gift breakdown') but is too vague to disclose what the operation entails, such as whether it returns a list or a summary. It does not contradict 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?
The description is extremely short, but it is under-specified rather than concise. A few words do not constitute a clear or well-structured explanation, and it lacks a clear verb or resource. It is similar to the 'Process' example that scored 2.
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?
Despite the tool's simplicity (no parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description does not adequately clarify the tool's purpose or behavior. An agent would likely be uncertain whether to call this tool over its siblings. It is incomplete for even a minimal understanding.
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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and no parameter semantics are expected.
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 is a fragment: 'Free-credit badges / gift breakdown.' It vaguely hints at gift credits and badges but does not clearly state the tool's function or what it returns. It does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like ucode_credit_referral_stats or ucode_credit_packages.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios, exclusions, or relationships to the many credit-related siblings.
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.