Get Talonic Credit Balance

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds rich behavioral details: it reads current balance, burn rate, projected runway, tier, and reset timestamp. It also notes the tool is stable and does not mutate data. No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured with sections (STATUS, main description, USE WHEN, DO NOT USE WHEN, RESPONSE SHAPE). Every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose. No redundant or vague statements.

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?

Given no input parameters and the output schema described explicitly in the description, the tool definition is fully complete. It covers all response fields and their semantics, making it easy for an agent to understand exactly what data it will receive.

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?

Input schema has no parameters (schema coverage 100%), so the description's job is to explain what the tool returns. It fully describes each field in the response (balance_credits, balance_eur, etc.), adding meaning beyond the empty schema. Baseline for 0 params is 4; the description meets this.

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 reads the user's Talonic credit balance and related metrics. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying when to use (budget-aware decisions) and when not to (checking per-call cost, which is covered by talonic_extract). Purpose is specific and actionable.

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?

Explicit 'USE WHEN' and 'DO NOT USE WHEN' sections provide clear context and alternatives. It guides when to check balance before large operations and when to route to other tools (e.g., per-call cost from extract response, top-up via dashboard). No ambiguity.

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