Retrieves local operation counts and explicit API usage values so you can review consumption; character counts are returned as-is, not converted into credits.
Read local operation counts and explicit usage values returned by the API. Character counts are not converted into credits.
| 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 full behavioral burden. It does disclose a useful trait: character counts are not converted into credits, which tells the agent how to interpret the returned values. But it does not say what the report contains, over what time window, or whether it is a read-only snapshot.
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 two tight sentences with no filler, and the core purpose comes first. The trailing 'returned by the API' phrase adds a little ambiguity rather than useful detail.
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 annotations and no output schema, the description should explain the shape of what comes back. It names 'operation counts' and 'usage values' but offers no structure, units, or scope, which leaves real gaps for a reporting 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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. Schema coverage is also 100%, leaving no gap.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Read local operation counts and explicit usage values.' The qualifier 'local' implicitly separates it from the sibling get_remote_usage_report, though it never names that sibling. An agent can tell this is a usage-reporting read tool, but the phrase 'returned by the API' muddies the local/remote distinction.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The 'local' qualifier hints that get_remote_usage_report or get_api_request_history might cover other cases, but the agent has to infer that relationship instead of being told.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.