get_balance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that this is a read-only balance lookup and identifies the scoping parameters, but it does not mention authentication needs, error behavior, or account-type constraints. This is a minor gap for a simple read tool, but still below the bar for strong transparency.

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 compact and well-structured: a clear one-sentence purpose followed by concise parameter explanations. Every line is useful and there is no redundant text.

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 low-complexity, two-parameter balance query with an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and parameters. The notable gap is the lack of routing guidance relative to sibling tools, but this is not severe given the simplicity of the operation.

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 schema provides no descriptions or enums, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining both parameters and giving concrete examples like 'binance / bybit / okx' and 'USD_M_FUTURE_TESTNET / LINEAR', which adds real meaning beyond the bare schema fields.

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 clear verb '获取' (get) and a specific resource: the balance for a specified exchange/account type. It implicitly contrasts with the sibling get_all_balances by emphasizing '指定' (specified), but it does not explicitly name that sibling or draw the distinction.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus get_all_balances or get_position. The intended use is implied by the parameter names and the word '指定', but there is no when-to-use/when-not-to-use direction.

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