Get wallet

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

Discloses the paper trading environment and virtual funds (50,000 mUSD), which is critical context. However, no explicit statement about read-only nature or side effects. With no annotations, the description partially bears the burden but could be more explicit.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences plus a short disclaimer. No redundant words, all information is essential and front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only wallet tool with no output schema, the description adequately describes the return components (USDT, frozen partitions) and environment. Lacks format details but sufficient given low complexity.

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 has 100% description coverage for the sole parameter coinId. The description adds 'Optionally include one coin asset,' which slightly clarifies optionality but adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it gets raw cash balances, listing specific components (USDT available, three frozen partitions) and mentions optional coin asset. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_portfolio or get_equity_curve, which likely provide different views.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does state 'Paper trading only' as a constraint, but lacks comparison to other balance or wallet tools. Agents may not know when to choose this over get_portfolio.

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