sub_account_limit_flow_batchFetch paginated traffic limit settings for multiple dynamic residential sub-accounts by product and account IDs, enabling batch monitoring of usage caps.
分页查询多个动态住宅子账号的流量上限设置。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | 页码，从 1 起，不传默认 1 | |
| 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） | |
| accounts | Yes | 子账号 id 集合，多个以英文逗号连接 | |
| pagesize | No | 每页数量，最大 100，不传默认 100 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description only adds the paginated multi-account query behavior and does not disclose response format, pagination semantics, or edge cases.
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 one tight, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It communicates the verb, resource, and scope immediately and every word earns its place.
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 query tool, the description plus schema and annotations is adequate for invoking the tool correctly. However, there is no output schema and the description does not describe the response shape or explicitly route among the closely related sibling tools, leaving clear 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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters including the product enum and accounts format. The description does not add meaningful parameter-level information beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 uses the specific verb '分页查询' (paged query) and names a precise resource: the traffic limit settings of multiple dynamic residential sub-accounts. '多个' and '查询' clearly distinguish it from single-account queries and from batch set operations such as sub_account_set_limit_flow_batch.
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?
The use case is implied: query the traffic limit settings for multiple sub-accounts with pagination. However, the description does not explicitly state when to choose this over the sibling sub_account_limit_flow (single account) or when to use the set_* variants instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.