Get Credit Balance

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

Annotations already declare this is a safe read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation, and the description adds valuable domain context: credits are consumed on launch and each tier costs one credit of the matching type. This economics model is genuinely useful and not in the structured fields. Slightly short of a 5 because it doesn't mention whether the call itself costs anything or whether balances are cached/stale.

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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded with actionable information: what you get, then when to call it. The credit-consumption clause earns its place because it explains the precondition's rationale; no filler.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description enumerates the return contents (balance, per-tier usage, available tiers with pricing), and the only sibling it interacts with is named. For a zero-param read tool, an agent has everything needed to call it and use the result.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly focuses its language on return-value contents rather than inventing parameter behavior.

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 ('check') and precisely enumerates the resources returned: credit balance, usage breakdown by tier, and available scan tiers with pricing. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like start_pentest or get_pentest, which deal with actual scans.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to call it ('before turbopentest_start_pentest') and why ('to verify you have sufficient credits for the desired tier'). The alternative — just launching the test — is implicitly excluded by this precondition, leaving nothing to infer.

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