get_balance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns a list with specific fields (e.g., asset, balance), which adds value by detailing the output structure. However, it lacks information on critical behaviors such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or whether the data is real-time or cached, leaving gaps in operational context.

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 highly concise and well-structured, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and output. The first sentence states what it does, and the second details the return values, with no wasted words or redundancy. This front-loaded approach makes it easy for an agent to quickly understand the tool's function.

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 tool's low complexity (0 parameters) and the presence of an output schema (which likely defines the return structure), the description is reasonably complete. It specifies the scope ('non-zero balance') and lists return fields, adding context beyond the schema. However, it could improve by mentioning authentication or data freshness, but the output schema reduces the need for extensive return value explanation.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate here. Since there are no parameters to explain, the description's focus on output is sufficient, earning a baseline score of 4 for not needing to compensate for any schema gaps.

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: 'Get futures wallet balances for all assets with non-zero balance.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('futures wallet balances'), and scope ('all assets with non-zero balance'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'get_account_summary', which might provide overlapping or related financial data, leaving room for ambiguity.

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 does not mention prerequisites, such as authentication or account setup, or specify contexts like checking balances before trading. With siblings like 'get_account_summary' that might include balance information, the lack of differentiation leaves the agent without clear usage instructions.

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