Get a party's balance

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool returns balance components with USD values, but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or error handling. The read-only nature is implied but not stated.

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 a single sentence plus a clear usage example, front-loading the core purpose. Every word adds value, with no redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the return values (balance components with USD values). It covers the three parameters and their purposes. However, it could elaborate on the exact response structure for better completeness.

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%, but the description adds significant meaning: it explains the optional date usage with a natural language example and clarifies that the party parameter accepts ANS names, display names, or raw IDs, going beyond schema descriptions.

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 retrieves a Canton party's CC balance with specific breakdown (total, locked, unlocked) and USD values, and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_balance_history' by focusing on current or point-in-time balance.

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 an example of using the optional date parameter for historical queries, but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., get_balance_history, get_rewards) or mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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