bybit_wallet_balance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It simply states the action without disclosing whether it's read-only, authentication needs, or what the response contains. For a balance retrieval tool, minimal behavioral context is given.

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 short sentence, which is concise, but it lacks structure or additional details. While efficient, it sacrifices necessary information for brevity.

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 low complexity (2 optional params, no output schema), the description fails to provide enough context for an agent to use the tool confidently. It omits parameter explanation and return value nature, making it incomplete for practical use.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the two optional parameters ('coin', 'accountType'). The schema only provides names, types, and a default for accountType; but no meaning or valid values are described, forcing an agent to guess.

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 'Get wallet balance for unified account' clearly identifies the verb (Get) and resource (wallet balance), and specifies the scope (unified account), which distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on orders or positions. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential wallet balance tools for other account types, though none exist among siblings.

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 vs alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, limitations (e.g., only for unified accounts), or contrast with related tools like bybit_positions.

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