my_balance

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares this is a safe, non-mutating read, so the bar is lower. With no output schema, the description's enumeration of the three returned fields (balance, plan, limits) is genuinely load-bearing, but it adds no detail on units, currency, auth requirements, or how limits are expressed.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, front-loading the returned content immediately. Nothing needs trimming.

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 zero-parameter read-only getter the definition covers the essentials: what comes back and whose data it is. The absence of an output schema is partially offset by naming the three return fields, though output structure and formatting remain unspecified.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline applies. The schema and description are consistent in implying a parameterless lookup.

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?

Names the specific resource returned (credit balance, plan, limits) and scopes it to the user, so an agent can tell it apart from generic plan/tooling siblings. It lacks an explicit verb (e.g. "get/return"), leaving it as a noun phrase, and the boundary with the sibling bitpull_plans is not addressed.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance at all. With a sibling named bitpull_plans in the catalog, the definition gives the agent no basis for choosing between querying the user's own balance versus plan information.

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