Movoa credit balance

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

With no annotations the description carries the burden, and it does disclose two useful traits beyond the name: the result is scoped to the account behind the current API key, and the call consumes no credits. It does not state read-only nature explicitly, return shape, or whether the balance is live versus cached.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and followed by the cost hint; nothing is padded. The phrasing 'the Movoa account behind MOVOA_API_KEY' is slightly tangled but still parsed in one pass.

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 zero-param read with no output schema, the agent still doesn't know the return shape (integer credits, currency, structured object) or whether the value is account-level or per-key. Adequate for calling it, thin for interpreting the result.

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 there is nothing to disambiguate — baseline 4 applies. The description correctly signals the implicit input is the API key context rather than any argument.

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 the specific resource returned — the credit balance remaining on the account tied to MOVOA_API_KEY — which is clearly distinct from generate_video (a mutation) and distinguishable in spirit from check_status. It lacks an explicit verb ('retrieve'/'get'), which keeps it just shy 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?

No guidance on when to call this versus check_status, which plausibly reports overlapping account state. 'Free to call' hints at cost, not at selection criteria, and no preconditions (e.g., whether an exhausted balance blocks generate_video) are stated.

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