hydromancer_my_usageRetrieve your Hydromancer API usage by day and request type, including requests, failures, speed, and billable tokens. Use it to monitor plan usage.
Your own Hydromancer API usage by day and request type: requests, failures, speed and billable tokens. Use to check how much of your plan you are using.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | Days to look back (default 7). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by scoping the data to the caller's own account and listing the measured dimensions, though it says nothing about aggregation granularity or retention limits.
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 tight sentences: the first defines the payload and the second gives the use case. Front-loaded with content, zero filler.
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 simple single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what comes back (the four metric families) and the account scope. It stops short of explaining per-day/per-request-type shaping details, but nothing critical to calling it is missing.
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?
Only one parameter exists and its schema description is fully documented ('Days to look back (default 7)'), including bounds. The description adds nothing about the `days` parameter, so this is the baseline 3 where the schema does all the work.
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 ('Your own Hydromancer API usage by day and request type') and enumerates the metrics returned (requests, failures, speed, billable tokens). It is implicitly distinct from all siblings, which query market/wallet data rather than account usage, though no explicit verb or sibling comparison is offered.
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?
'Use to check how much of your plan you are using' gives a concrete trigger for calling the tool. There are no exclusions or named alternatives, but none of the sibling tools overlap with account usage, so the guidance is sufficient in context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.