get_rebalance_plan

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains the tool's output (deltas, move lines) and the effect of optional parameters (band returns a band_check block). It does not disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only. The existence of an output schema partially compensates, but the description could be more explicit.

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?

Description is two sentences: first states the primary function, second details parameters and options. Information is front-loaded, no redundant phrases, and every sentence adds value.

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?

With 5 parameters (including nested objects), an output schema, and a planning context, the description covers the main output and parameter effects. However, it does not explain the expected keys in allocation_pct and target_pct objects, nor the structure of the move lines output. The presence of an output schema mitigates this, but for an agent to invoke correctly, more detail on object parameters would be beneficial.

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 description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains the purpose of required params (allocation_pct, target_pct, nav_usd) and optional params (band adds band_check, exchange adjusts wording). The description does not detail the structure of the object parameters (e.g., keys in allocation_pct), but the mention of BTC/ETH/CASH split provides meaningful context.

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?

Description clearly states the tool produces 'USD deltas and exchange-style move lines to reach a target BTC/ETH/CASH split'. It identifies the specific resource (rebalance plan) and action (get). The mention of splitting into BTC/ETH/CASH distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_allocation_band which focus on band checking.

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?

Description lists required parameters (allocation_pct, target_pct, nav_usd) and optional ones (band, exchange), implying when to include them. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like check_allocation_bands, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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