Retrieves the whole account daily spending limit for a Kadam ad account, not a single campaign. A limit of 0 means no cap.
Gets the daily spending limit of the WHOLE ACCOUNT, not of a single campaign (for a campaign budget use kadam_adv_get_campaign). A limit of 0 means no cap. When the reported minimum is null the account currency does not support changing the limit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful semantics beyond that: '0 means no cap' and 'null minimum means the currency does not support changing the limit', which explain the returned values' meaning rather than restating the read-only nature.
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?
Three short sentences with zero filler. The scope constraint and sibling redirect are front-loaded ahead of the edge-case return semantics.
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 usefully documents the two key return values (limit=0 meaning no cap, null minimum meaning currency unsupported). It leaves minor gaps (no mention of other returned fields or error behavior), but covers what an agent needs to interpret the result.
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 the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a no-argument call and adds no spurious parameter guidance, keeping semantics clean.
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?
States a specific verb ('Gets') and resource ('daily spending limit') with an explicit scope qualifier ('WHOLE ACCOUNT, not of a single campaign'). It names the sibling kadam_adv_get_campaign and the condition that separates them, so an agent can route correctly without opening schemas.
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?
Explicitly redirects campaign-budget calls to kadam_adv_get_campaign, giving clear usage context. It stops short of a full when/when-not framing (e.g., preconditions for calling), but the alternative-selection guidance is present.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.