sub_account_limit_flowCheck a dynamic residential sub-account's traffic limit and used data for either permanent or monthly plans. Enter product type and sub-account ID to retrieve current usage and limit settings.
查询动态住宅某个子账号的流量上限设置与已用量。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | Yes | 子账号id | |
| product | Yes | 产品：dynamic-no-expiry=动态住宅流量（永久），dynamic-monthly=动态住宅流量（期限） |
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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's job is light. It adds that the tool returns both the limit setting and the used amount, but it does not explain edge behaviors such as what happens when no limit is configured or whether usage is real-time.
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?
A single, dense Chinese sentence that is front-loaded with the query action and the resource, with no redundant words or preamble.
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 two-parameter read-only query with rich annotations, the description covers the essential intent and result contents. It is slightly incomplete in not distinguishing from the batch variant or describing the response shape, but the simplicity and annotations make the tool callable.
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%, with both 'account' and 'product' already documented, including enum values. The description adds only the framing '动态住宅子账号' and does not materially enrich parameter meaning beyond the schema.
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?
Description states a specific query action ('查询') on a clearly identified resource ('动态住宅某个子账号的流量上限设置与已用量'), which is distinct from setting/updating limits. It does not explicitly contrast with sub_account_flow or sub_account_limit_flow_batch, so sibling differentiation is only partial.
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 on when to use this tool instead of the sibling sub_account_limit_flow_batch, sub_account_flow, or set_limit_flow tools. The product enum implies the supported products, but no when/when-not conditions or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.