Check your CapSolver account balance and available packages to monitor credit usage and plan replenishment.
Get the current CapSolver account balance.
Returns: {"success": True, "balance": 5.67, "packages": [...]} on success. {"success": False, "error": "...", "error_id": ..., "error_code": "..."} on failure.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses both success and failure return formats, including fields like 'success', 'balance', 'packages', and error details. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or safe, nor does it mention authentication or rate limits, but the return structure is more than minimal.
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 extremely concise: one sentence stating the purpose and one sentence providing the return format. Every word serves a purpose, and the key information is front-loaded. There is no redundancy or filler.
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?
The tool is simple with no parameters and an output schema exists. The description already provides the return structure, making the agent fully aware of what to expect. It could mention authentication or that no parameters are required, but these are minor omissions for a trivial read-only operation.
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, and the schema coverage is 100%. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline score of 4. The description adds no parameter details because none exist, which is appropriate.
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 the action ('Get') and the resource ('current CapSolver account balance'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools that solve or detect captchas, so an agent can immediately understand this is for account balance retrieval.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name and context imply it is for checking balance and not for captcha operations, there is no direct guidance such as 'Use this to verify funds before solving' or 'Do not use this for captcha tasks.' Usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.