Get wallet

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description goes far beyond by detailing the paper trading simulation, execution policies, fee structures, and the nature of virtual funds, providing extensive behavioral transparency that supplements the annotations perfectly.

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 informative but slightly verbose, especially in the latter half detailing execution costs. However, it is well-structured with the core purpose upfront, and every sentence adds context that aids an AI agent in understanding the tool's behavior.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 optional parameters, read-only, with output schema), the description is fully complete. It explains the return structure (balances, frozen partitions) without needing to duplicate the output schema, and no critical information gaps remain.

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%, providing baseline clarity. The description adds value by explaining the coinId parameter's purpose ('Optionally include one coin asset'), which is not fully captured in the schema. The agentTrace parameter is adequately described in the schema, so the description does not need to repeat it.

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 clearly states the tool gets raw cash balances, enumerates the three frozen partitions, and mentions optional inclusion of a coin asset. It is specific and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_portfolio and get_positions by focusing solely on wallet/cash balances.

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 context: it is for paper trading only and not financial advice. It implies usage for retrieving wallet balances but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to alternative tools, such as get_portfolio or get_equity_curve.

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