tokportal_get_credit_balance

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries a lower burden. The description simply reinforces that this is a read operation, which is consistent with annotations. No extra behavioral details are added, but there is no contradiction.

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 a single, short sentence that fully conveys the tool's purpose with no extraneous information. It is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description plus annotations fully cover what the tool does. However, it does not hint at the return value or the scope of credit balance (e.g., current user vs. account), which could be helpful context. Still, it is mostly complete.

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 accepts zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% (no missing fields). Thus, with no parameters to document, the description has nothing additional to explain, and a baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 'Get credit balance' clearly indicates a read operation to retrieve a credit balance. This verb+resource structure is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools, although it does not elaborate on what kind of credit balance (e.g., user, account) compared to similar get/read tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like tokportal_get_credit_costs or tokportal_list_credit_transactions. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, which is important when multiple credit-related tools exist.

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