Check Singularis credit balance

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: 'Free: no credits are charged,' which tells the agent invoking this has no cost side effect and is safe to call freely. It does not discuss auth/rate limits, but those are minor here.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, followed by when to use it and the cost caveat. Every sentence carries information; no padding or repetition.

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 zero-parameter read tool with an output schema, full annotation coverage, and rich context signals, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what it returns, when to call it, and that the call is free. Nothing material is missing.

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; there is no parameter semantics to add. Nothing in the description misleads about inputs.

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 ('Show this key's remaining Singularis credits') plus a second dimension of value ('cloud-equivalent dollars of compute delivered so far'). The scope is narrowly the current key's balance, which cleanly distinguishes it from the compute/inference siblings like singularis_gemm or singularis_dispatch.

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 two concrete trigger conditions: 'Use before a large job' and 'when a user asks what Singularis has cost or saved.' That is clear usage context. There are no competing balance tools among the siblings, so there is nothing to exclude, but it stops short of explicitly stating it is the only cost-checking path.

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