novada_wallet_balance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. Description adds authentication details (NOVADA_DEVELOPER_API_KEY falls back to NOVADA_API_KEY) and that it wraps a POST endpoint, which is behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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, focused sentences/paragraphs. First clause states purpose immediately. 'Best for' and 'Not for' sections are concise and actionable. Auth info appended without redundancy. Every sentence adds value.

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 zero parameters, complete annotations, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage guidance, and auth. Missing return value description, but for a simple balance read, the implied result (currency amount) is clear enough.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. Description adds no parameter info (none needed). Baseline for 0 params is 4.

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?

Clearly states it reads the master Novada wallet balance (currency). Distinguishes from per-product balance tools by naming novada_plan_balance_all as the alternative. The verb 'Read' and resource 'wallet balance' are specific.

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 says 'Best for: Confirming credit available before launching billable scraper/proxy jobs' and 'Not for: Per-product MB/quota — use novada_plan_balance_all', providing both when-to-use and when-not-to-use with an alternative tool.

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