Check the agent's RMB balance to confirm sufficient funds before publishing a bounty task.
查询当前 Agent 的资金余额（人民币），用于发布赏金任务前确认余额是否充足
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": "get_agent_balance"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.11Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly says '查询' (query), indicating a non-mutating read operation. However, it does not disclose any additional behaviors such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or potential side effects. For a simple read operation, this is minimally adequate but not rich.
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 a single, succinct sentence that immediately states the action and purpose. Every word earns its place, with no wasted content.
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 (no parameters, no output schema, no complex side effects), the description is complete. It states what the tool does and why it would be used. The lack of return-value details is acceptable because no output schema exists and the purpose is straightforward.
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 schema is trivially covered. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and there is nothing to compensate for.
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: '查询当前 Agent 的资金余额（人民币）' (query the current Agent's RMB balance). The verb '查询' (query) is specific, the resource is explicit, and it is distinct from sibling tools such as get_agent_identity and create_bounty.
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 gives a clear use case: '用于发布赏金任务前确认余额是否充足' (used to confirm sufficient balance before publishing a bounty task). This provides context and implies when to use it, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Since no sibling tool serves the same purpose, this is adequate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.