kie_balance

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Cheap, no side effects,' which informs the agent that this is a low-risk, non-mutating operation. It does not describe the return format or whether real-time data is returned, but for a simple balance tool, the side-effect disclosure adds meaningful transparency beyond the name.

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: two short sentences. 'Remaining credits on the kie.ai account' conveys the core purpose, and 'Cheap, no side effects' adds valuable behavioral context. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the most important information.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is suitably complete. It tells the agent what the tool does and the side-effect profile. It does not explicitly mention that the tool returns a numeric credit value, but that is largely self-evident from the name. The lack of an output schema makes the description's omission slightly noticeable, but overall it covers the essential context.

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 input schema is empty. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but none is required; it correctly focuses on the tool's behavior.

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 tool's function: reporting remaining credits on the kie.ai account. While it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'check', the noun phrase 'Remaining credits' unambiguously conveys a balance query. It is distinct from sibling tools like kie_ledger or kie_status because it specifically targets credit balance, though it does not name alternatives.

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 implies usage context: it is a cheap, side-effect-free way to check credit balance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to check credits vs. view ledger or status). The phrase 'no side effects' suggests it is safe for frequent calls, but no exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.

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