get_balanceRetrieve your current prepaid or enterprise balance and currency to confirm available funds before ordering or topping up eSIM data plans.
Current prepaid balance (or enterprise balance) and currency.
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read. The description adds that it covers both prepaid and enterprise balances, which is useful scoping context. It does not describe what happens when no balance exists or whether a currency conversion applies.
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?
One short sentence, front-loaded with the resource and covering both account types and currency. 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?
A zero-param read tool with full annotation coverage; the description tells the agent what comes back (balance and currency) for both account types. No output schema, so naming the returned fields is a plus. Minor gap: no note on account-type selection or empty-state behavior.
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 baseline is 4. Nothing more the description could add here.
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 (current prepaid/enterprise balance) plus currency. Clear verb-less resource retrieval is fine for a zero-param getter. Doesn't differentiate from siblings, but none of them share this resource.
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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives. Implied usage from the name only. For a simple read tool this is a minor but real gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.