Three tools with clear verb-noun naming and complete input schemas. Descriptions are present and actionable (avg 156 chars), meeting the 10-1024 char baseline. All parameters have type definitions and descriptions. However, output schemas are undocumented, LLMs cannot predict response structure for downstream chaining. Error handling is basic (isError flag only, no recovery guidance). No tool annotations (readOnlyHint, etc.). Missing parameter constraints on threshold (0-100 range declared but not validated in description). Overall solid foundation but lacks production-grade polish for complex agent workflows.

• Document output schemas for all three tools. Define the structure of ProviderQuota and ProviderError objects (fields, types, example values) so LLMs can extract data and chain calls. Example: 'Returns {ok: boolean, provider: string, used: number (0-100), remaining: number, resetTime: ISO8601, window: string, error?: string, category?: string}'.
• Add readOnlyHint: true to all three tool definitions in the ListToolsRequestSchema response. This signals to LLMs that these tools are safe to call without confirmation and do not modify state.
• Enhance error messages with actionable recovery steps. E.g., 'Invalid provider "xyz". Supported: claude, kimi, zai. Call get_quota_summary to see configured providers.' or 'Missing token for provider "claude". Set CLAUDE_API_TOKEN environment variable and retry.'
• Clarify the 'mock' parameter in get_provider_quota description: 'If true, return deterministic mock data for testing. Use when provider API is unavailable or to avoid rate limits during development.'
• Update check_quota_health description to explicitly state: 'Threshold must be 0-100 (default 80). Usage at or above this percentage triggers a warning.'