get_creditsCheck the remaining API credits for the team associated with your API key to monitor usage and avoid interruptions. This credit balance lookup is free.
Show how many credits the API key's team has left. Free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds a genuinely useful non-annotation fact — that the call is free — and clarifies the balance is scoped to the API key's team, but says nothing about refresh/caching behavior of the returned balance.
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 the cost qualifier. Nothing is extraneous and nothing is buried.
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 lookup whose annotations already cover safety, this is close to sufficient. It does not say what shape the response takes (a raw number, a plan quota, a reset date), and no output schema exists to fill that in, which is the only real gap.
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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to carry; the baseline for a no-param tool applies. The description correctly signals there is nothing to supply.
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 ('Show how many credits') plus the ownership scope ('the API key's team has left'), which is enough to distinguish it from every sibling tool in the list.
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 word 'Free' implies you can call it at no cost, and a balance check is obviously a pre-flight operation, but the description never says when to call it or in relation to what (e.g., before running billable endpoints). Usage is implied rather than stated, and no alternatives or exclusions are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.