get_balanceRetrieve your current prepaid balance in ETB to confirm available funds before placing orders for gift cards, subscriptions, and SMM services.
Returns the calling partner account's current prepaid balance (ETB). Orders are paid from this balance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation via 'Returns', but does not explicitly mention that no data is modified, nor does it disclose potential errors, rate limits, or authentication requirements. It adds the fact that it returns the balance in ETB, which is helpful, but otherwise leaves behavioral details unspoken.
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 with no fluff. The core purpose is front-loaded ('Returns the calling partner account's current prepaid balance (ETB)'), and the second sentence adds relevant context without padding. Perfectly sized for a zero-parameter tool.
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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is the sole source of behavioral and response information. It explains what the balance is used for but does not specify the response format (e.g., whether it returns a number, a string, or an object with currency). It also does not mention edge cases like zero balance or error handling. For a simple getter, this is acceptable but not 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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing to explain beyond what the schema already indicates (empty properties). The description does not need to elaborate on parameters, and it does not.
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 the exact operation ('Returns'), the resource ('current prepaid balance'), the scope ('calling partner account'), and the currency ('ETB'). The added note 'Orders are paid from this balance' gives useful context that helps differentiate it from other balance tools like get_premium_balance, even though that sibling is not explicitly named.
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?
Provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling get_premium_balance. The phrase 'Orders are paid from this balance' implies a purpose but does not state when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or conditional logic are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.