get_balances

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses the authentication requirement ('Requires a developer key (floe_live_...)') and the exact scope of balances included. While it doesn't explicitly state read-only, the verb 'get' and 'aggregate' imply a non-mutating operation. This adds useful behavioral context beyond an empty 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?

Two tight sentences: the first front-loads the purpose with a clear verb and scope; the second adds the essential auth requirement. No filler words or redundant explanations.

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?

The tool has no params, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description must cover function and invocation requirements. It does both, though it stops short of describing the exact response structure (e.g., whether it returns a single total or per-wallet breakdown). Given the simplicity, this is reasonably complete; a small improvement would be specifying the return format.

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 input schema has no properties, so there are zero parameters to document. Per the rubric, 0 params yields a baseline of 4; the description correctly mentions no arguments are needed aside from implicit auth, so no additional parameter semantics are required.

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 identifies the function: 'Aggregate USDC balances across the developer account' with specific scope (developer wallet, every agent wallet, API credits). This distinguishes it from sibling get_wallet_balance (single wallet) and get_credit_remaining (credits only), satisfying the specific-verb+resource criterion.

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 implies a use case: when a complete picture of all USDC balances is wanted. It states a prerequisite (developer key) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_wallet_balance or get_credit_remaining. However, the 'aggregate' wording and listing of all sources provide clear context, warranting a 4.

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