Retrieve canteen account credit in CZK, subsidy vouchers, and server-enforced 24-hour purchase limit usage to check your remaining spending room before ordering.
Account credit in CZK, subsidy vouchers, and the server-enforced 24h purchase limit usage.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the entire behavioral burden. It discloses one genuinely useful trait — that the 24h purchase limit is server-enforced — but says nothing about read-only vs. mutating nature, authentication requirements, or whether the balance is live or cached.
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?
It is a single economical clause with no padding, but it is a sentence fragment that leads with a data label rather than an action, so the most important information (what the tool does) is not front-loaded. Being terse here shades into under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.
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?
With zero parameters and no output schema, the description does the minimum by enumerating the three returned values, which is helpful. It still omits the operation type and any behavioral or auth context that missing annotations would normally require.
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 there is no parameter semantics for the description to explain; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly does not waste space on 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?
The description names the specific data the tool surfaces (CZK credit, subsidy vouchers, 24h purchase-limit usage), which does distinguish it from siblings like orders or minutkas. However, it is a bare noun phrase with no verb, so the agent must infer that this is a read/retrieval operation rather than, say, a mutation of account credit.
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 statement of when to call this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer for related questions (e.g. orders vs. balance). The agent has to infer usage purely from the returned-field list, and there are no prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.