get-exchange-balance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe how it behaves—such as whether it requires authentication (implied by connection parameters but not explicit), potential rate limits, error conditions, or what the output format looks like (no output schema).

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool.

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 complexity of financial data retrieval, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'balance data' includes (e.g., currencies, amounts), how results are structured, or any behavioral aspects like authentication needs or error handling, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 the schema already documents both parameters ('connectionFields' and 'connectionId') with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what's in the schema, adhering to the baseline score for high coverage.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('balance data for a provided Exchange'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-wallet-balance' or 'get-wallet-balances' which also retrieve balance data but for different resources (wallets vs exchanges).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get-exchange-transactions' or 'get-exchange-sync-status' that might be related, nor does it specify prerequisites such as needing an established exchange connection.

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