Check the authenticated account's remaining request budget to pace API calls and avoid rate limits. Requires API credentials.
Deprecated: use fetch_rate_limit_status. Get the authenticated account's current rate-limit status (remaining request budget). Useful for an agent to pace itself. Requires API credentials.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose an auth precondition ('Requires API credentials') and the operational intent ('pace itself'), but says nothing about whether the deprecated endpoint still functions, the granularity or shape of the returned budget, or any per-endpoint behavior.
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?
Deprecation warning is correctly front-loaded and the whole definition is three short clauses. The line 'Useful for an agent to pace itself' is mildly redundant with the parenthetical budget explanation but still earns its place by stating the use case.
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 deprecated, zero-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers purpose, replacement, and auth need. The only real gap is whether the endpoint still works during deprecation, which an agent deciding between the two tools would want.
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 and the schema is an empty closed object, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies.
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 and resource ('Get the authenticated account's current rate-limit status') and clarifies the payload as 'remaining request budget'. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling fetch_rate_limit_status, which is rare and directly useful for selection.
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 first token is 'Deprecated: use `fetch_rate_limit_status`', which is an explicit when-not-to-use plus a named alternative — exactly the routing an agent needs to avoid calling a stale tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.