gen_tripo_get_credit_balance

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys that the operation requires authentication ('authenticated') and that 'Fetch' implies a read-only side-effect-free call. However, it does not disclose what happens on auth failure, whether this is a live network call subject to latency, or any other operational traits.

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 efficient and front-loaded, with the verb+resource on the first line, followed by a KB pointer and a usage example. Each element earns its place and the example is a genuinely useful invocation hint for the agent.

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 an output schema and zero required parameters, the description is mostly adequate. The significant gaps are the undocumented parameter semantics and the lack of routing guidance against gen_check_credit_budget. The KB reference and example add some context but don't close these gaps.

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 0%, and the description does not compensate: there is no explanation of timeout_s or include_raw anywhere. The included example call with no arguments at least signals both parameters are optional, which matches the zero required parameters. Still, this is the minimum compensation for two completely undocumented parameters.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch the authenticated Tripo API wallet credit balance.' This clearly identifies what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the similarly named sibling gen_check_credit_budget, which also relates to credit accounting and could confuse an agent.

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 when-to-use guidance is provided. The tool's purpose implies 'use when you need the wallet balance,' but there is no mention of when not to use it, nor any routing to alternatives like gen_check_credit_budget or gen_tripo_get_task_status. The KB reference ('see knowledge_base/31_GENERATIVE_CONTENT_PIPELINE.md#api-wallet-balance') points to external context but does not itself state usage conditions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.