mb_get_balances

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the returned fields, the default filtering of zero-balance assets, and the asset count (1900+). This goes beyond a bare 'gets balances' by explaining the data shape and a key behavioral nuance.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence adds value. There is no redundant phrasing or filler.

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 two-parameter getter with no output schema, the description covers the return fields, default behavior, and how to control the result set. It does not go into pagination or error handling, but these are not necessary for this simple tool given the sibling context and parameter coverage.

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 already has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds extra context: it tells users how to find accountId via mb_list_accounts, and it explains the practical effect of hide_zero with a concrete example. This enriches the schema's minimal 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get asset balances for an account.' It further clarifies the scope by listing the fields (available, on_hold, total) and the behavior around zero balances. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like mb_get_positions or mb_list_accounts.

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 clear context on the default behavior and how to change it ('most common use case', 'Set hide_zero=false'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the context is sufficient for typical use cases.

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