Check your current tier, API access, AI-credit balance, seat/project/node limits, and billing period before large runs to avoid mid-flight 402 errors.
Read your own tier, API access, AI-credit balance, seat/project/node limits and billing period. Check this BEFORE a large run so you self-throttle instead of discovering a 402 mid-flight.
| 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 behavioral burden, and it does real work: it declares this is a read, that the scope is the caller's own account ('your own'), and it surfaces the 402 failure mode that motivates the call. It does not mention cost, caching, or refresh cadence of the balance figures, which keeps it out of 5 territory.
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 sentences, no filler. The first front-loads the returned data, the second delivers the trigger and the consequence. Every clause earns its place.
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 and no annotations, the description must convey return content, and it enumerates the categories of data returned as well as the failure mode the caller should preempt. Minor gap: no indication of units, formatting, or how often the balance updates, which an agent cannot recover from structured fields here.
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 of 4 applies. The description correctly implies a self-scoped, argument-free call ('your own tier'), which is consistent with the empty schema and clarifies that no account identifier is 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 ('Read') and enumerates exactly what resource set is returned: tier, API access, AI-credit balance, seat/project/node limits, billing period. No sibling in the list (webhooks, share links, members, projects, iterations) overlaps with this function, so an agent can select it unambiguously.
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?
Gives an explicit trigger condition with rationale: check before a large run to self-throttle and avoid a 402 mid-flight. That is strong, actionable context. It stops short of a 5 only because there is no explicit 'when not' framing and no alternative to name for the pre-flight check.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.