get_account_usageRetrieve account details for the API key, including wallet balance, remaining prepaid traffic, and daily usage for a chosen number of past days. Read-only.
Show the account tied to the API key, wallet balance (PTC), remaining prepaid traffic, and traffic used per day for the last N days. Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | How many past days of usage to include |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description repeats 'Read-only' but adds useful scope about what data is returned, though it does not describe authentication requirements, response shape, or rate limits. With annotations carrying the behavioral burden, a 3 is appropriate.
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 a single front-loaded sentence followed by a short safety note. Every element contributes: the enumerated data fields tell the agent what to expect, and no filler is present.
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?
For a simple read-only tool with one fully documented parameter and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete. It lists the returned data categories, though without an output schema it could do slightly more to describe the response structure.
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 100%, and the schema fully documents the single 'days' parameter with default, minimum, and maximum. The description's phrase 'last N days' mirrors the schema but adds no syntax, constraints, or interpretation beyond it, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 names a specific verb ('Show') and enumerates the exact resources returned: account, wallet balance (PTC), remaining prepaid traffic, and daily traffic usage. No sibling tool overlaps with account usage, so an agent can identify this as the account/billing endpoint without ambiguity.
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?
Usage is implied by the listed return data — an agent would call this when it needs account identity, balance, or prepaid traffic. However, the description does not state when to use this versus alternatives or mention any prerequisites beyond being tied to an API key.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.