Get available funds

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the read-only nature and account scope, but it does not describe response contents, currency, or any data-freshness limitations. It provides a baseline level of transparency without richer behavioral context.

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, efficient sentence with the core data point upfront and the access mode stated at the end. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 zero-parameter, read-only balance check, the description covers what is returned (cash balance and margin), where (INDstocks account), and that it is safe to call. A marginally more complete description might mention the return shape or currency, but the simplicity of the tool makes this adequate.

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 schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document beyond the schema itself. The description correctly omits parameter guidance, matching the baseline for a parameterless tool.

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 names a specific resource—'cash balance and margin'—and scopes it to the INDstocks account. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_holdings or get_positions by identifying the financial data being retrieved.

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 notes 'Read-only', which implicitly tells the agent it is safe to call without side effects. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer get_funds over related tools or mention any exclusions, leaving usage context mostly to inference.

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