get_wallet_balance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Requires authentication' and uses the verb 'Fetch' to imply a read-only operation. It also details what the balance includes (main, food, cashback credits), adding useful context. It could be more explicit about having no side effects, but 'Fetch' is a strong read signal.

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 two sentences with no fluff, front-loading the primary action and resource. Every word contributes value, such as 'logged-in' and 'Requires authentication.'

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It tells what the tool returns (wallet balance with categories), who it applies to (logged-in user), and the prerequisite (authentication). No additional context is needed.

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, and the schema is empty. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and the baseline for 0 params is 4. It adds no parameter-related meaning, but none is needed.

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 'Fetch the logged-in user's wallet balance including main credits, food credits, and cashback credits' clearly states the action (fetch) and the resource (wallet balance) with specific detail. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like auth_status and get_basket by focusing on wallet balance for the logged-in user.

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 clear usage context by specifying it applies to the logged-in user and requires authentication. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but no sibling tool serves the same function (wallet balance), so the guidance is sufficient.

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