air_get_credit_balanceRetrieve your organization's available assessment credits, plan, and cost per assessment before running a batch so you predict usage limits instead of hitting them.
Assessment credits available to this organization, with the plan and the cost per assessment. Call it before a batch of assessments so the limit is predicted instead of hit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds behavioral value by disclosing the return payload — plan and per-assessment cost — which is meaningful since no output schema exists.
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 tight sentences: the first declares what is returned, the second front-loads the calling context. Zero waste.
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 parameterless read tool with no output schema, the description adequately discloses what comes back and when to call it. A note on whether the balance is per-org global or scoped would make it complete.
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?
Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing parameter-wise for the description to clarify or compensate for.
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 resource (assessment credits for this organization) and enumerates the returned contents (plan and cost per assessment). An agent can distinguish it from sibling 'air_request_credits' immediately.
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?
Explicitly prescribes when to call it: before a batch of assessments, so the limit is predicted rather than hit. No alternative or exclusion is named (e.g. request_credits for topping up), so it falls just 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.