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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it at least conveys that this reads 'real exchange balances' from connected accounts rather than simulated data. It does not disclose the return shape, whether positions are included, or any auth/account requirements, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 and front-loads the main purpose before listing supported exchanges and usage guidance. The inline parameter list is a bit dense but carries no redundant filler.

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 low-complexity tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description gives the data source, the supported exchanges, and a clear trigger phrase. It could be more complete by specifying whether the tool returns only balances or also positions, but it is sufficient for basic invocation.

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 input schema only declares exchange as a string with no enum or description. The tool description supplies the full semantics: the parameter is optional and limited to one of five specific values. This fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage on the only parameter.

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 'real exchange balances from their connected accounts' and names the supported exchanges, which makes the tool's purpose concrete. It stops short of a 5 because it also says to use it for 'positions,' and a sibling tool get_positions exists without any differentiation.

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 when the user asks about their balances, positions, or portfolio.' It does not mention exclusions or compare against alternatives like get_positions, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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