Fetch usage and credit data for up to 20 agents in one request, with an optional shared date range. Use it to retrieve bulk agent usage without separate calls.
Fetch usage/credits for many agents in one call (fan-out). Max 20 agentIds. Optional shared date range.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| range | No | Optional date range | |
| agentIds | Yes | Agent IDs (1–20) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.6.17Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the batching cap semantics and that the date range is shared across all agents, but says nothing about partial-failure behavior, per-agent ordering, or whether results are aggregated — useful but modest added context.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the key constraint. Slight redundancy: 'Max 20 agentIds' duplicates the schema's '(1–20)' and '(fan-out)' is jargon that adds little.
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?
With no output schema, the description never indicates what comes back — per-agent usage objects, totals, error entries for unknown IDs — nor whether the result preserves input order. For a nested-parameter read tool this leaves a real gap, though the annotations and schema cover the input side well.
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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented there, including 'Agent IDs (1–20)' and the ISO from/to fields. The description's 'Max 20 agentIds' and 'Optional shared date range' largely restate the schema, adding only the notion that one range applies to every agent — baseline 3 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Fetch usage/credits for many agents') and the batching scope ('in one call (fan-out)'), which distinguishes it from the singular get_agent_usage sibling without naming it. An agent can infer the bulk-vs-single split, though explicit sibling naming would make it airtight.
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?
'For many agents in one call' implies the bulk scenario, but the description never says when to prefer this over get_agent_usage (e.g., single agent, >20 agents, need for combined totals) nor any exclusions. Usage is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.