OptionContext

get_agent_info

Retrieve the current Agent API key's plan type, active status, remaining credits, and symbol access limits. Optionally override the API key to inspect a different key.

Instructions

Fetch information about the current Agent API key, including plan type, active status, remaining credits, and symbol access limits. Args: api_key (str, optional): Override API Key. If omitted, uses environment key.

Tool call template

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": "get_agent_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`api_key`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.3Aug 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the information returned and notes that omitting api_key uses the environment key, which adds some transparency. However, it does not mention side effects, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error behavior beyond a simple fetch.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences plus a one-line Args section, front-loading the key purpose and then adding parameter detail. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simple tool complexity, an output schema that describes return values, and a single optional parameter clearly explained, the description provides all necessary information. The combination of purpose, parameter semantics, and output schema makes this complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema only defines 'api_key' as optional string/null with no description. The tool description's 'Args' section explicitly explains the parameter's meaning, including its optionality and fallback behavior. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb 'Fetch' and clearly identifies the resource ('current Agent API key') and enumerates the returned details (plan type, active status, credits, symbol limits). This fully distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on market data or option chains.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage context by specifying it fetches agent API key info, but it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives or provide any 'when not to use' guidance. Clear context is present, but explicit exclusions or named alternatives are missing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server