Get API Settings

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive safety, yet the description adds real behavioral context: the semantics of `source` (account/default/none with the $100 fallback), the exact error code a purchase over the cap raises, and the authorization constraint that only the account holder can raise the limit. This is value well 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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and dense with useful specifics, but the field enumeration is long and slightly list-like. Nearly every clause earns its place, so it stays efficient despite the length.

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 parameters, the description must carry the full burden of explaining what comes back and how to act on it, and it does so thoroughly — field meanings, fallback defaults, error code, and remediation path are all present.

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 is 4. The description instead documents the response field semantics in detail (limit/source/spent/remaining, added), which is extra helpful given there is no output schema, though it is not strictly parameter semantics.

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 precise verb+resource: retrieving the account's API spend controls and the limits actually enforced. It enumerates the three top-level result groups (spendLimit, topupLimit, settings) so the agent knows exactly what the tool surfaces, distinguishing it from balance/pricing siblings.

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?

Explicitly says to check `remaining` before an expensive operation and describes the resulting failure mode (MONTHLY_SPEND_LIMIT_EXCEEDED) plus the escalation path (only the account holder can raise it, on the website). It lacks an explicit pointer to sibling tools (e.g. get_balance) for related needs, keeping it short of a 5.

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