marketplace_has_funds

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond the purpose; it does not mention return behavior, potential outcomes (e.g., what happens when funds are insufficient), or any side effects. It is consistent with the annotations, so no contradiction, but it adds minimal value beyond them.

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 a single, short sentence that leads with the verb and states the exact condition. It contains zero filler and is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (no parameters, no output schema, read-only annotations), the description is nearly complete. However, it does not specify which account is being referenced (e.g., the authenticated location's marketplace account) or clarify the concept of 'sufficient funds' beyond the literal meaning. These are minor ambiguities that could affect correct interpretation in some contexts.

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 schema coverage is trivially 100%. There is nothing for the description to elaborate on regarding parameters. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies to tools with no parameters, and the description does not need to compensate for any gaps.

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 states a clear verb ('Check') and resource ('account') and specifies the condition ('sufficient funds'). It is specific enough to distinguish from other marketplace tools like marketplace_charge or marketplace_get_charges, though it does not explicitly name a sibling that might be confused with it. The name and description align well.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no context about the account being checked, and no mention of prerequisites or typical use cases. It only states the action itself, leaving the agent to infer when to invoke it.

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