Retrieve your current credit balance and account details to monitor usage and available credits.
Get the current user's credit balance and account information.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_user_balance"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, read-only nature, rate limits, or what 'account information' includes beyond 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?
The description is a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It is perfectly concise and front-loaded.
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 description covers the basic purpose but lacks details about the return value (e.g., format of balance, additional account info). Given no output schema and no annotations, it is minimally complete but could be enriched.
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?
With zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the description adds no parameter-specific information, which is acceptable. Baseline is 4 for no parameters.
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 states the action ('Get') and the resource ('current user's credit balance and account information'), which is specific and distinct from sibling tools that focus on tables, columns, folders, etc.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no context about prerequisites or typical use cases. The tool is simple, but zero guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.