获取订阅信息与积分余额

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations exist to lighten the description's burden, but the description does disclose which fields come back: monthly, permanent, and limited-time credits, freeUsages, and reset time. It does not mention side effects (a get implies none), but it also fails to mention rate limits, caching, or whether the values are live. That is acceptable disclosure for a read-only getter, but not rich.

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 one dense, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The parenthetical breakdown of credit types is compact and informative rather than redundant.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description must convey the return shape; it lists the key fields, including freeUsages and reset time, which are not obvious from the name alone. For a zero-parameter getter, this is nearly complete; only output formatting and freshness are unstated.

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 schema defines zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The description correctly implies the tool takes no arguments and acts on the caller's account.

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 uses a specific verb (获取) and resource (subscription info for the current API Key account), and it enumerates the returned data: subscription status, credits split by type, freeUsages, and reset time. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as estimate_credits, which also deals with credits, so it stops short of a 5.

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 states what the tool returns but never when to call it instead of alternatives; for example, it does not clarify whether this is the way to check the balance before generate_image or how it differs from estimate_credits. The API-Key scoping is mentioned, but no exclusions or naming of alternatives are provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.