Get SpicyAPI USD balance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and repeatability. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: the exact decimal format of the returned strings, and the clarification that task creation does its own funds check. This helps the agent understand precision expectations and when calling is redundant. It doesn't mention rate limits or latency, but those are not expected for a simple balance query.

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 two concise sentences. The first sentence front-loads the primary purpose and output format; the second adds a critical usage note. No filler or redundancy. Every word contributes.

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 tool with an output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs to know: what is returned (three balance components in exact decimal strings), when to use it, and when not to. The output schema presumably details the structure, so the description doesn't need to. No critical information is missing.

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, so the baseline per guidelines is 4. The description correctly omits parameter details since there are none to explain. No value is lost from lack of parameter documentation.

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 explicitly states the tool's function: returns available, held, and total balance as exact decimal USD strings. The verb 'Return' plus resource 'balance' is specific, and it clearly distinguishes the purpose from sibling tools (none of which are balance-related). No ambiguity remains.

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 clear usage context: use when balance is requested or when diagnosing funds. It also explicitly states that this is not a prerequisite for task creation because task creation already checks funds, which prevents unnecessary calls. It doesn't name an alternative tool because none exists, but the exclusionary guidance is valuable.

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