get_balanceRetrieve current account balance in RUB and can_payout status to confirm funds before purchases or renewals, preventing 'Insufficient balance' failures.
Returns the current account balance in RUB, plus the can_payout amount for accounts with partner status. Purchases and renewals fail with "Insufficient balance" when the balance does not cover them.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, yet the description still adds real value: currency RUB, the conditional can_payout field for partner accounts, and the failure mode affecting purchases/renewals. This is solid context beyond the structured fields.
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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with what is returned before pivoting to the failure condition. No filler or redundant restatement of the name.
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 carries the return-value burden and does so by naming balance (RUB) and can_payout. Nothing critical is missing, though it could note response shape or partner-status conditions slightly more.
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?
There are zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to compensate for; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. No additional argument semantics are needed.
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 (Returns) plus resource (account balance) and even pins the unit (RUB) and the extra can_payout field. It is clearly distinguishable from the proxy/traffic siblings, none of which touch account funds.
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 useful context (purchases/renewals fail on insufficient balance) but never explicitly says when to call this tool versus alternatives like get_account_history or get_price. Usage is implied rather than directed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.