get_all_coins_balance

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

The description only indicates it is a read operation ('get'), but with no annotations provided, it should disclose more behavioral traits such as response format, error handling (e.g., invalid account_type), or whether zero-balance coins are included. The minimal description leaves significant behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 extremely short and to the point, using an Args block for parameter details. Every sentence adds value with no fluff or repetition.

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 absence of output schema and annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify what the response contains (e.g., all coins or only those with balance), how results are structured, or any pagination or limits. The tool is one of many balance-related functions, and more detail would help the agent use it correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning for account_type by listing allowed values, and for coin by stating it is optional for filtering. However, it does not fully explain parameter behavior, such as case sensitivity of account_type or the effect of omitting coin. Baseline is 3 given the low 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 tool's purpose: getting all coins balance for an account type, and lists allowed account types (UNIFIED, CONTRACT, SPOT, FUND) and an optional coin filter. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_account_balance', which may have similar functionality.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_account_balance'. The description lacks context for when this tool is appropriate and does not mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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