jackpotkeywords_credit_balance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool returns the credit balance and implies it is a read operation. It does not detail any authentication requirements, rate limits, or error states, but for a simple balance check this is acceptable.

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?

The description is two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose, the second gives usage guidance. Information is front-loaded and efficient.

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 simple read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, that it requires authentication (implied by 'authenticated account'), and when to use it. It could mention the expected output format, but it is complete enough for the use case.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. With no parameters, the description does not need to add param semantics. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adds context about the return value.

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?

The description clearly states the tool returns the current credit balance for the authenticated account, using specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by mentioning it should be used before calls like /recommend and /aeo-scan.

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 description explicitly instructs using this tool before /recommend or /aeo-scan to verify credit availability, providing clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or list alternatives beyond the implied prerequisite relationship.

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