Get Customer Custodial Wallet Balance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return shape (available/total/pending/token), which is genuinely useful since there is no output schema. However, it does not explain the 'sanitized' qualifier or what openWorldHint implies about external dependencies.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose in the first sentence, followed by args and returns. The Args block largely duplicates schema content, which is minor waste, but the description is short and well ordered.

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 no output schema, the description's mention of available/total/pending/token balances fills the main gap. A reader knows what they get back and what to supply; only error/permission behavior and the meaning of 'sanitized' remain unspecified.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description's Args section merely restates the param names and short descriptions, adding no format, source, or lookup guidance. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb plus resource ('Get the balance of a customer's custodial wallet'), which is narrower than the generic sibling ashar_get_wallet_balance and clearly distinct from the list_* tools. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to use instead, but the scope is unambiguous.

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 statement of when to call this versus ashar_get_wallet_balance or ashar_get_customer_custodial_wallet, and no prerequisites (e.g., whether the wallet must already exist or be provisioned). The agent must infer routing from the name alone.

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