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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond a generic 'returns balances' by detailing output structure (breakdown by blockchain/currency), statuses (sweep, sweep_in_progress, sweep_not_allowed, no_balance), and specific reasons for stuck funds (e.g., HOT_WALLET_LOW_GAS with hot-wallet address). This transparency enables accurate expectation-setting.

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 compact, front-loading the core purpose and then adding necessary detail about statuses and error reasons. Every sentence earns its place, and the formatting (with 'AND why stuck funds are stuck') guides attention to actionable insight without bloat.

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 covers the essential aspects: scope (all wallets), grouping (blockchain/currency), statuses, error examples, and common reasons for stuck funds. An output schema exists (as per context signals), and the description already explains return values enough for an agent to select and interpret results correctly.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema confirms an empty properties object (100% coverage). Baseline for 0 parameters is 4; the description appropriately omits parameter details since none exist.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Returns unswept (unsettled) balances across all wallets, broken down by blockchain and currency.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_daily_volume or get_payment_summary by focusing on sweep/settlement status.

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 explicitly states when to use it: 'Use this to answer "where is my money / why has it not swept".' It also explains what insights are provided (sweep readiness, lastSweepError with actionable info, pending SCW deployment, missing cold wallet), giving clear context for selection over other tools.

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