get_accountRetrieves your prepaid balance, documents used this month, free documents left, next document price, and projected run-out so you can track e-signature usage and costs.
Prepaid balance, documents used this month, free documents left, the price of the next document, and the projected run-out.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully enumerates what the response contains and implies a read-only operation, but says nothing about authentication/account scoping, whether it deducts or costs anything, or any rate limiting; a read-only nature is only implicit.
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 compact sentence with no filler, and the most important item (prepaid balance) is listed first. It is a dense list rather than a sentence, which slightly hurts readability but nothing is wasted.
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, no annotations, and no parameters, the description's enumeration of return fields is exactly the context an agent needs, and it is reasonably complete for a simple zero-arg read tool. It stops short of stating the units/format or confirming the read-only contract.
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 to document and the baseline is 4. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter detail that does not exist.
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 is a noun-phrase list of returned fields ('Prepaid balance, documents used this month...') rather than a stated verb+resource, so the action ('retrieve your account/billing status') must be inferred from the tool name and title. It does distinguish the tool from document-oriented siblings by making clear this is account-level billing data, but the purpose is never stated outright.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to any sibling tool (e.g., why to check the balance before calling send_document). The agent must guess the trigger condition entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.