Check Tencent Yuanbao search quota: monthly and daily used counts, limits, and cases queried today by the current process.
查看元宝搜索额度：本月和今天已用次数、上限，以及这个进程今天已查的案数。
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": "usage"
}
}| 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 burden. '查看' implies a read-only inspection, and the description usefully discloses what data is surfaced (counts, caps, per-process tally), but says nothing about authentication requirements, error modes when quota is exhausted, or whether it has any side effects.
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 front-loaded sentence that lists the returned fields with no filler. Every clause contributes 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?
With no output schema, the description must describe return content, and it does so by enumerating the three reported metrics. It stops short of stating the format or behavior when unauthenticated/over quota, but for a zero-parameter informational tool this is nearly complete.
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 disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies.
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 names a specific resource (元宝搜索额度) and enumerates what is reported: monthly/today usage counts, limits, and per-process case count. The vague tool name 'usage' is rescued by the description, and the purpose is clearly distinct from siblings like verify_claim or find_work.
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 it is a diagnostic/quota-check tool, but there is no explicit statement of when to call it versus doing real work, and no conditions or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.