firestarter_wallet_balance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. It adds context by explaining what the balance includes (spendable, reserved against live self-funded drops, spent, lifetime totals), which is behavioral information beyond the bare annotation. The explicit 'Read-only' marker is somewhat redundant with the annotation, but the component breakdown adds genuine value. A minor gap: it doesn't describe the exact response structure, but with no output schema that's acceptable.

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 sentence with a clear front-loaded purpose followed by enumerated components. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary, but every clause adds meaning and the structure is logical. The usage guidance is placed at the end, which is fine because the core purpose comes first.

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 parameterless, read-only tool with safety annotations already covering the behavioral profile, this description is complete. It fully explains what the balance shows, when to use it, and how it relates to funding and withdrawal. No critical information is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 the description carries no parameter documentation burden. Schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter semantics. It correctly focuses on output semantics instead.

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 a clear verb-object pair ('Show your drop wallet's balance') and enumerates the specific components of that balance (spendable, reserved, spent, lifetime totals). This uniquely identifies the tool and distinguishes it from financial siblings like firestarter_withdraw_wallet and firestarter_fund_wallet. An agent cannot confuse it with any of the 80+ sibling tools.

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?

Explicitly states three trigger conditions: 'when an owner asks what's in their drop wallet', 'before firestarter_withdraw_wallet', and 'to check whether a firestarter_fund_wallet deposit has cleared yet'. It also names two sibling tools directly, giving concrete routing guidance. This is exactly the level of usage differentiation expected.

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