Venice API Key Rate Limits

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral constraint — that x402 wallet auth is rejected and an API key is mandatory — but says nothing about rate-limit semantics, caching, or response freshness.

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?

Two sentences with no filler, front-loading the returned data before the auth constraint. Every clause earns its place.

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 no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the burden of describing the return payload, and it does so by listing the five fields returned. The auth requirement is also covered. It stops short of routing the agent away from the similar key/billing siblings, which is the only meaningful gap.

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 nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline is 4. The schema is trivially empty and adds no competing information.

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 verb ('Get') and enumerates the exact resources returned: balances, access status, tier, expiration, and model-specific rate limits. It is distinguishable from most siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the closely named venice_get_api_key, venice_api_key_rate_limit_logs, or venice_billing_balance, which also touch key/billing data.

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 gives one actionable precondition ('API key required — this endpoint does not accept x402 wallet auth'), which tells the agent when this call will succeed. However, it names no alternative tool and gives no condition for choosing this over venice_get_api_key or venice_api_key_rate_limit_logs, so usage is only implied.

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