Saldo da conta: disponível e bloqueado por moeda (ex.: BTC, BTC_locked, BRL, BRL_locked). O saldo total de cada moeda é disponível + bloqueado.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds specific context: it returns available and blocked per currency and explains total balance as available + blocked.
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?
Two concise sentences in Portuguese, front-loaded with the main purpose. Could be slightly more structured but effectively conveys the core functionality.
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?
While the output behavior is described, the input parameter is unexplained, no examples are given, and there is no output schema. The description is incomplete for a tool with one undocumented parameter.
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 only parameter 'account' is a string with no description in the schema (0% coverage) and the description does not explain what it represents, leaving the agent unsure how to provide it.
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 it retrieves account balance with available and locked amounts per currency, using examples like BTC and BRL. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like bity_executed_orders or bity_list_accounts.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or when not to use it.
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.
Each Bity tool targets a distinct resource (balance, orders, ticker, trades, orderbook) and the platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.) serve clearly separate functions. There is no real overlap or ambiguity between any of the tools.
The Bity tools use a 'bity_' prefix, but the naming pattern is inconsistent: bity_get_balance uses a verb, while bity_orderbook and bity_ticker are just nouns. The non-Bity tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) follow no common pattern and break the verb_noun convention.
At 14 tools, the count is within a reasonable range, but the server mixes a focused Bity integration with generic platform tools (marketplace, report_bug, etc.), making the scope feel inflated. A dedicated Bity server would not need the platform-layer tools, so the count is slightly high for the apparent purpose.
The Bity toolset covers read-only operations: balance, orders, ticker, trades, orderbook. There is no tool to create, cancel, or modify orders, which is a fundamental omission for a trading exchange. The server cannot execute any trades, so it fails to provide a complete lifecycle for its core domain.