get_balanceRetrieves the current credit balance for the account, helping you check remaining credits before running SightRadar searches, detections, or comparisons.
Current credit balance of the account. 100,000 credits = US$1. Real-time index, search, selfie, detect = 93 credits; compare = 93 per image; batch photo and search_by_point_id = 62. Free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the description's added value is the freshness claim ("real-time") plus the credit-to-USD conversion rate and per-operation costs. That is genuine context an agent cannot get from annotations or schema. It stops short of saying whether the balance is account-wide or per-key.
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, then dense pricing facts, with no filler sentences. The trailing fragment "Free." lacks a clear antecedent (which operation is free?), which slightly hurts precision.
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 no output schema, the description supplies what is needed to interpret the response: units and the 100,000-credits-per-dollar conversion. It does not state the returned field names or whether plan/quota info accompanies the number, but that is a minor gap for a tool this simple.
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 schema-coverage baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to compensate for. The pricing details are interpretive context for the result, not parameter meaning.
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 resource ("current credit balance of the account") and implicitly the read verb, which is unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_usage, which likely returns consumption detail, so the sibling differentiation is left to inference.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use statement or named alternative. However, the embedded per-operation pricing table implies the intended use case: checking affordability before costly operations like index, detect, or compare. Usage is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.