get_credit_balanceCheck your wallet's prepaid credit balance with no fees or credit spend. Requires HOODGROW_PRIVATE_KEY.
This wallet's current prepaid credit balance — free (no x402 charge, no credit spend). Requires HOODGROW_PRIVATE_KEY to be configured.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.1Input schema / $schemaAdded value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the call is free (no x402 charge or credit spend) and requires HOODGROW_PRIVATE_KEY to be configured. These details go beyond the structured hints and do not contradict them.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the tool's purpose and includes only essential caveats (free, key requirement). There is no filler or redundant information.
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?
This is a zero-parameter, read-only getter and the description covers the return concept (balance), cost behavior, and auth prerequisite. With no output schema, the description still sufficiently conveys the result. Given the low complexity and rich annotations, the description is complete.
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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify at a parameter level. However, the description adds that the wallet is implicitly identified via HOODGROW_PRIVATE_KEY, giving useful semantic context about how the tool determines which balance to return.
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 clearly states the tool returns the wallet's current prepaid credit balance and explicitly notes it is free with no credit spend. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like buy_credits and list_credit_bundles by focusing on the balance-query resource.
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 description implies use when checking the wallet's available prepaid credit and provides a clear prerequisite: HOODGROW_PRIVATE_KEY must be configured. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for a simple read-only tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.