acedatacloud_get_balance

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

No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It discloses read-only nature (summarizing balance), return format, and unit (Credits not USD). However, it does not mention authentication needs, rate limits, or potential latency.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by return format details. No unnecessary words, but could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for fields).

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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and output schema existing, the description covers purpose, format, and unit. It is fairly complete, though omits aggregation behavior (e.g., whether totals are across all subscriptions).

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?

Schema coverage is 100% (1 parameter fully described). The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema's 'Optional service UUID to filter by.' Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool summarizes remaining credit balance across subscriptions and provides details on the return format (fields like service_id, remaining_amount). It distinguishes from siblings like 'usage_summary' by focusing on credits, but could be more explicit about the difference.

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 vs alternatives like acedatacloud_list_usage or acedatacloud_usage_summary. There is no mention of scenarios where it is appropriate or not.

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