Retrieve usage statistics and credits consumed for a specific agent, optionally filtered by date range, to track consumption and support billing or capacity planning.
Get agent usage statistics and credits consumed
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| range | No | Optional date range for usage stats | |
| agentId | Yes | The agent ID to get usage for |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.6.17Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the fact that credits consumed are returned; it says nothing about default date-range behavior, timezone/aggregation, or what happens if range is omitted.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity leaves the definition thin rather than optimally structured.
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?
The tool is simple (one required param, fully documented schema, no output schema) and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description is minimally sufficient. It still omits what the returned statistics comprise and how the optional range defaults, which an agent would need to call it confidently.
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%, including nested from/to ISO date documentation, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description adds nothing beyond it, making baseline 3 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 names a specific verb and resource ('Get agent usage statistics and credits consumed'), so an agent knows exactly what data is being fetched. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling get_agent_usage_bulk, leaving the single-vs-bulk choice implicit.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_agent_usage_bulk, nor any stated prerequisites (e.g., whether the caller needs an agent ID they own). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.