Get credit balance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful detail about the components of the balance and the 1 credit = 1 USD pricing, which helps the agent interpret the result. No contradiction or missing behavioral concern is apparent.

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?

The description is two sentences with no filler. The core subject is stated first, followed by the useful explanatory details about credit categories and pricing. Every sentence contributes to correct invocation and interpretation.

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 tool, the description covers the important semantics: account scope, balance components, and pricing unit. There is no output schema, but the listed categories strongly imply what the response reports. It does not spell out the exact response format, but the tool is simple enough that this is a minor 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 has zero parameters, so there is no schema detail to compensate for, and the baseline is 4. The description still adds value by clarifying what 'balance' means and scope it to the API key's account. No parameter explanations are needed.

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: credits on the Nosana account behind the API key. It decomposes the meaning into assigned, reserved, settled, and available, and the title adds the 'get balance' verb. This is unambiguous and distinct from the deployment-focused sibling tools.

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 provides clear context: this tool reads the credit balance for the account associated with the API key. It does not name alternatives, but none of the sibling tools serve the same purpose, so no exclusions are necessary. A brief 'use this to check account credits' would be marginally clearer, but the context is sufficient.

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