Check your current credit balance to diagnose and avoid 402/433 errors during music creation. Use this tool to triage insufficient-credit situations before generating or managing tracks.
Current credit balance. Free, no-credit check for 402/433 triage.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the operation is free and does not consume credits, which is important for cost-sensitive selection. It could mention output format or auth, but the zero-parameter, read-only nature keeps the need minimal.
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 two short phrases with no wasted words. It front-loads the core meaning ('Current credit balance') and then adds the valuable triage context in the second phrase.
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-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is nearly complete: it states what the tool reports and why it should be used. The only minor gap is not specifying the return type or format, but that is low risk for a simple balance check.
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 input schema has no parameters and the description adds no parameter details, which is appropriate. With zero parameters, the description cannot be expected to explain parameter behavior, so a baseline of 4 is fair.
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 identifies the resource ('credit balance') and the purpose ('402/433 triage'), which separates it from generation and upload siblings. It lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'check', but the meaning is unambiguous.
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 specific when-to-use context: free, no-credit check for triaging 402/433 errors. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.