Need to know your YesWeHack credit balance? Retrieve the exact number of available credits for your authenticated hunter account while keeping other profile data private.
Retourne uniquement le nombre de crédits disponibles pour le hunter connecté, sans exposer les autres données du profil.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by specifying the exact output scope: only the number of credits, and explicitly what is not returned (other profile data). This clarifies the return behavior beyond the annotations.
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 sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action (returning the credit count) and the key limitation (not exposing other profile data) in a compact, efficient structure.
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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description is fully adequate. It states exactly what is returned (the credit number) and what is excluded, giving an agent all necessary information. Since there is no output schema, the description's implication of a numeric balance is sufficient.
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 has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (since there are no properties). The description correctly adds no parameter information because none exist. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate.
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 (Retourne), resource (crédits), and scope (hunter connecté), and explicitly limits output to the credit count, excluding other profile data. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling get_my_credit_history, which would provide transaction history, so an agent can select it without opening schemas.
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 clearly implies when to use this tool: to get the current credit balance without additional profile details. It does not name alternatives explicitly, but the phrase 'sans exposer les autres données du profil' and the tool name itself make the usage context obvious. A brief mention of get_my_credit_history as the alternative for history would have made it perfect.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.