get_account_balance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description is the sole source for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get,' which implies a read operation, but it doesn't state the operation is read-only, mention any authentication or rate-limit requirements, or describe side effects or data volume. For a tool acting across all accounts, this lack of behavioral note is a significant gap.

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 entire description is one concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, and every word contributes to understanding what the tool returns. There is no redundancy or unnecessary background, making it efficiently structured.

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?

For a simple tool with no parameters and a declared output schema, the description covers the essential purpose. It names the output (equity, cash, balance overview) and scope (all accounts). The output schema exists, so return details need not be restated. It is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, though a brief note on account scope or expected data could push it to 5.

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 and a schema coverage of 100% (vacuously). The description doesn't need to explain parameter meaning because there are none. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool gets baseline 4, and the description correctly avoids adding pointless parameter info.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and identifies a precise resource: 'account equity, cash, and balance overview for all accounts.' This distinguishes it from siblings like get_account_position (positions) or get_account_history (history), so an agent can tell which tool handles overall balances.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus its many siblings (get_account_position, get_account_history, get_orders, etc.). There is no mention of when this is the right choice or when another tool would be better, leaving the agent with 13 alternatives and no decision aid.

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