Check remaining 声线 credits (30 per cover) before generating a cover to confirm your balance.
查声线还剩多少积分（每首翻唱 30）。
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": "points"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the key behavioral fact that a cover costs 30 credits and that this tool reports the remaining balance. However, it never states that the call is read-only/non-mutating, nor what unit or format the returned balance takes, and gives no rate-limit or auth context. For a zero-parameter read this is acceptable but thin.
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?
A single short sentence with the action front-loaded and the cost detail in a parenthetical; there is no filler or redundancy. Nothing could be removed without losing 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?
For a trivial no-parameter, no-output-schema query, the description covers what it reports and the credit unit economics. It could go further by stating that it is a safe read and whether it returns a plain number, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.
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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the schema; the baseline for a no-param tool applies. The added note about the 30-credit cost per cover is useful domain context even though it is not a parameter.
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 states a specific verb and resource in Chinese: '查声线还剩多少积分' (check how many credits remain for voice), which is clearly a balance/credit lookup. The parenthetical '每首翻唱 30' (30 per cover song) ties it conceptually to the sibling cover_song, though it doesn't name that sibling explicitly as an alternative.
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?
Usage is only implied — an agent can infer this is the tool to call before a cover_song operation to verify sufficient credits, since the cost per cover is mentioned. There is no explicit 'use this when…' phrasing, no statement about when not to call it, and no named alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.