get_usageRetrieve current month's usage and billing details, including billable numbers, proxy traffic, and total cost in USD cents for your organization.
The current month's bill so far: billable numbers, proxy traffic, and the total in cents (USD). Organization keys only.
| 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?
Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying what the bill includes and that the total is in cents (USD), plus the org-key restriction.
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, front-loaded sentence that communicates the resource, contents, unit, and scope without any wasted words. Every element 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?
For a no-parameter read-only tool, the description is largely complete: it states what the result includes and its unit. It does not give the exact response shape or clarify timezone/month-boundary semantics, but these are minor for this simple tool.
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 has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description's mention of organization keys is a scope/auth note rather than a parameter, and with no parameters a score 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 clearly identifies the resource as the current month's bill/usage and lists the specific contents (billable numbers, proxy traffic, total in USD cents). It also signals org-level scope with 'Organization keys only,' which differentiates it from the project-level sibling get_usage_by_project, though it does not name that sibling explicitly.
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 clear usage context by stating 'Organization keys only,' which implies the caller must use an organization-scoped key and that project-level usage belongs elsewhere. However, it does not explicitly mention the alternative get_usage_by_project or state when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.