get_trading_funds

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description's added value is the disclosure that the balance is approximate because it comes from a backend float, and that the response bundles a wallet address. That is genuine context beyond structured fields; it just doesn't cover auth/session requirements, which the params handle.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary return value, followed by the precision caveat and the sibling pointer. The endpoint token '(/v1/user)' is borderline noise but not harmful.

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 carries the burden of explaining returns and does so (balance plus per-family managed wallet address, approximate value). An agent has enough to call and interpret it; only auth/session mechanics are left implicit.

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 coverage is 100%, so all six parameters including accountRef and walletAddress are already documented. The description reinforces that chain is a single identifier and that the returned address is the managed wallet, not the control wallet, but adds little beyond the schema baseline.

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 the specific resource (native balance tradable by the managed GDEX wallet) and adds a second returned value (managed wallet address per chain family). It is clearly distinguishable from usdc_get_balances, though the boundary with get_balances/get_usdc_balance/get_wallet_info is not addressed.

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?

Explicitly routes cross-chain USDC lookups to usdc_get_balances and scopes this tool to a single chain. It stops short of saying when to prefer this over get_balances or get_wallet_info, so it is clear context without full exclusions.

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