minia2a_credits

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

This goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by disclosing key non-obvious behavior: no per-wallet balance endpoint, automatic credit decrement via ?wallet=<your-wallet>, and trial visibility through X-Trial-* headers or the 402 body. This is exactly the kind of context an agent needs to avoid incorrect assumptions. No contradiction with the annotations.

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?

Three sentences with no wasted words. The main caveat about the missing per-wallet balance endpoint is front-loaded in the second sentence, and the final sentence adds useful headert/response details without padding.

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 zero-parameter, read-only informational tool, the description is largely complete and the V5-specific note is valuable. The main gap is that 'platform-level stats' is vague and the description does not specify which stats are returned or how they relate to minia2a_get_stats.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description even enriches context by mentioning the ?wallet=<your-wallet> query parameter used in service calls, even though it is not an input to this tool.

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 states a verb and resource: 'Explain the V5 credit/trial model and report platform-level stats.' It is unambiguous that this is an informational/read-only tool, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling minia2a_get_stats, which may also report platform-level stats.

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 implies when to use it — for credit/trial model questions — and the note warns the agent that V5 has no per-wallet balance endpoint, which prevents a common misuse. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over minia2a_get_stats or provide when-not conditions.

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