Retrieve the current available balance from your Paystack integration for accurate financial tracking.
Get the available balance on your Paystack integration
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": "check_balance"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states the operation is to 'get' data, implying read-only, but does not confirm safety, auth requirements, rate limits, or any other behavioral traits beyond the obvious. The description adds no context beyond the purpose itself.
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, clear sentence that is front-loaded with the action verb. Every word contributes to the meaning, with no fluff or redundancy.
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?
The tool is extremely simple (no params, no output schema), and the description conveys the core purpose. However, without an output schema or any mention of the response format, the agent lacks full context on what 'available balance' returns. It is minimally viable but has clear gaps in return value expectations.
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, and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). Per the rubric, 0 params yields a baseline of 4, and there is no need for the description to explain parameters it doesn't have.
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 'Get the available balance on your Paystack integration' has a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('available balance'), clearly stating the tool's function. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'balance_ledger', which likely provides related but different balance information.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'balance_ledger'. The description implies usage (when you need the balance) but offers no explicit context, exclusions, or alternative references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.