cash_balance

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

The description goes far beyond the read-only annotation by disclosing authentication requirements, settlement bucket semantics, and that `settlementUnavailable` means a second request failed rather than no unsettled cash. It also transparently notes that field mapping is partly verified, that nonempty rows are projected, and that missing values are not zero. No contradiction with the annotations exists.

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 longer than typical, but every sentence earns its place by explaining a distinct nuance: cash vs. buying power, settlement behavior, auth requirement, and field-mapping caveats. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and well organized into paragraphs.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description provides enough detail for an agent to interpret key response fields and avoid common misinterpretations. It covers authentication, edge cases, and data reliability, making it effectively complete for this parameterless read-only tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it instead explains output field semantics, which is appropriate here.

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 resource: cash balance and buying power in a trading account, naming specific fields (`cashIdr`, `buyingPowerIdr`). It is not tautological and adds meaning beyond the tool name, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like `portfolio`, `position`, or `financials`.

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 gives useful contextual guidance, such as using buying power rather than cash to judge affordability and requiring a trading session. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, so tool-selection guidance is mostly implied rather than direct.

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