get_accountCheck the account's credit balance and subscription status before launching lead extraction jobs, so you can confirm sufficient credits and avoid interrupted work.
Saldo de créditos y estado de la suscripción de ExtractorLead.
Úsalo antes de lanzar cualquier trabajo para saber si hay saldo suficiente.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the purpose (checking balance before jobs) but does not mention whether balance data is real-time, cached, or tied to specific authentication scopes.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed by when to use it. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition or filler.
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 an output schema covering return values, no parameters, and annotations covering read-only safety, the description supplies the remaining essential context: what account data it exposes and when to call it. A minor gap is not clarifying data freshness or account scope.
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?
There are zero parameters, so parameter semantics have no gaps to fill. The description correctly does not waste space discussing inputs, and the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4.
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 identifies the resource as the ExtractorLead credit balance and subscription status, which is more specific than the generic name 'get_account'. It is distinguishable from sibling tools, which are all lead/search/enrichment operations, though it uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb.
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?
It explicitly says to use this before launching any job to check whether there is enough balance, giving a clear usage context. It does not name exclusions or alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.