Check your referral credit balance. Requires authentication via API key (from register_agent). Returns pending balance (in the clawback window), confirmed balance, total earned, and total paid out, plus whether payouts are currently available. Confirmed credit is not withdrawable while payouts_available is false.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | Yes | Your API key from register_agent. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark it read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it requires authentication, returns pending and confirmed balances, and clarifies that confirmed credit cannot be withdrawn while payouts_available is false. This goes well beyond the annotation baseline.
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 three tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and then providing necessary auth and payout-availability details. Every sentence contributes meaningful information with no fluff.
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 one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description fully compensates by enumerating the return fields and the critical payout condition. An agent has everything needed to call this tool correctly and interpret its result.
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 schema already fully documents api_key with the same source hint ('from register_agent'), so the description adds no new parameter-level meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate because schema coverage is 100%.
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 ('Check') and resource ('referral credit balance'), then enumerates the exact returned fields, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does. This clearly distinguishes it from write-oriented siblings like request_payout and register_agent.
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 makes the obvious use case clear—checking referral balance—and notes that authentication requires an API key from register_agent. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it; the relationship to request_payout is only implied through the payouts_available field.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The discovery-oriented tools—search_deals, compare_vendors, track_changes, and plan_stack—overlap in purpose and can be confused, especially for queries like 'What's cheaper than Vercel?' or 'Are free tiers being removed?'. The referral and account tools are clearly distinct, but the overlapping query surface lowers the overall disambiguation quality.
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern such as check_balance, submit_referral_code, and request_payout. Two tools deviate: 'leaderboard' is a bare noun and 'my_referral_codes' uses a possessive prefix, creating minor inconsistency.
Twelve tools is well within the ideal range and each tool covers a meaningful part of the AgentDeals domain: deal discovery, referral management, agent registration, payouts, and social routing. None of the tools feel redundant or extraneous.
The tool surface covers the main agent lifecycle well: registration, referral code submission and retrieval, balance checking, payouts, and friend management. Minor gaps exist—there is no way to update or remove a submitted referral code, and the payout address must be configured via an out-of-band API endpoint.
