get_card_balanceShow corporate card balances with monthly limit, amount spent, and remaining balance for a specified or current month.
Show the caller's corporate cards with monthly limit, amount spent, and remaining balance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| month | No | Month as YYYY-MM. Defaults to the current month. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 clear without the description. The description adds the fact that it returns all of the caller's cards with three computed figures, but says nothing about card count, pagination, or whether the month affects the spend calculations. No contradiction with 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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the returned fields listed last. No filler and nothing wasted.
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, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile; the one optional parameter is documented in the schema. The definition is adequate for a simple read tool, though it omits any routing guidance against the seven sibling tools.
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 description coverage is 100% and the single 'month' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the YYYY-MM format and current-month default. The description never mentions the month parameter, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema — the baseline 3 for high coverage 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?
States a specific verb (Show) and resource (caller's corporate cards) plus the exact fields returned — monthly limit, amount spent, remaining balance — which separates it conceptually from the transaction-listing and approval siblings. However, it does not name or reference any sibling tool, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as list_card_transactions. Usage is only inferable from the described return fields (a balance check), which meets the 'implied usage' bar but leaves the agent to guess.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.