Check Potarix Balance

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds value beyond annotations by listing exact output fields (email, credits remaining, total purchased, card on file, active keys) and stating that the call is free and does not consume credits. Annotations already mark it as read-only and idempotent, but the description provides concrete behavioral details.

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 sentences: the first lists output fields, the second states cost. Extremely concise with no filler, front-loaded with key information. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given no parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it lists all returned fields, states it's free, and annotations cover safety. The tool is simple and fully described for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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 no parameters (empty schema with 100% coverage). The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter meaning since none exist.

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 explicitly states that the tool shows the calling key's profile with specific fields: email, credits remaining, total purchased, card status, and active API keys. This is a specific verb+resource combination that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like topup_credits or start_checkout.

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 mentions the tool is free and shows the key's profile, implying use for checking balance/status. While it does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, the sibling list provides context for differentiation. A clear usage scenario is implied but not spelled out.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.